FAO No.1980 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1980 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 04.03.2011 Buta Singh son of Chet Singh resident of Kamma, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana ......Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur widow of Sh. Balbir Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Delay is condoned. 2. The appeal is by the registered owner of the vehicle, who admittedly was involved in the accident. The contention of the appellant is that he has transferred the vehicle and also wants to rely upon the document of transfer purported to have been effected in favour of one Jaswinder Singh. The document is sought to be filed through an application under Order 41 Rule 27. 3. If a registered owner has not got a transfer of registration to his subsequent purchaser or the subsequent purchaser himself has not taken such steps and the subsequent purchaser was not also a party in the proceedings, there is no error in the award of the Tribunal that makes the registered owner liable for a claim arising from the third FAO No.1980 of 2011 (O&M) -2- party. This point has been settled by the Hon'ble Suprmee Court in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko 2001(8) SCC 748 and affirmed in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Pushpa @ Leela and others Vs. Shakuntala and others 2011(2) SCC 240. 4. There is no error in the award. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall have a right of enforcement of the extent to which he is damnified against the subsequent purchaser by independent proceedings, if he is so advised. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 04, 2011 Pankaj*