'V HI6H COURT OF CHHATHS6ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. [cl No.91 of 2007 APPELLANT Hemant. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Jantri Bai & ors PO^T FOR JUD6MENT ON 20th Julv. 2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HI&H COURT OF CHHAmS©ARH^T BILASPUR ^PPELLANT Non-applicant No.2 M. A. Fcl N0. 91 OF 2007 Hemant, S/o. Tjiakchwid Kat<d<war, Aged about 45 years, Occupct-ion AgncuJture &, Scnw Mill, R/o. Sevtopara, Dongargaon. Tehsi! OCTigargaon, District ftajnandgaon (C&) Versus RESPONDENTS Cldmants RESPONDENT Non-claimdnt no.l 1. Smt. Jfmtrj Bai, W/o. 6opat Ram Dewangcm, Aged about 43 years, Occupation House Wife. 2. Ajay Kumar, S/o. 6q)al Ram bewangan, Aged about 28 years 3. Tiroth Ram, 5/o. €opal Ram bewan9an, Aged about 26 years 1, 4. RG(jendra Kumar, S/o. 6opal Rflun bewangan, Aged about 22 years Respondents No. 1 to 4 are R/o. Seytapara, Dongargaon, Tehsil Dongargaon, Ojstrict Rajnandgaon (C6t) t 5. Hemlal, S/o. Preetr*am Sohu, Aged about 28 years, Occupation A9ficuJture, R/o. vilia9e Kohka, Police Station DongargGon, District ftajnandgaon (C^) Present: Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocote for the appellant. Mr. N.P. Koshta, Advocarire for respondents NoJ to 4. Mr. P.R. Potankar, Advoccrte for respondent No.5. JUD6MENT (Detivered on 20.7.2007) Dhjrendra Mishra. J 1) Appellant/non-appIiGant No.2 has preferred this appeal against the award dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rcy'nandgaon in Ctaim Case. No.18/06 whereby {earned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.l,95,(X?0/- as compensation to the cldmants/ respondent No.l to 4 herein. legat representotives of deceased Sopalrgm, (^ who died on 26.42005 as a result of motor vehicle accjdent involving motorcycle number C(508-ZH-0407 driven by respondent No.5/non- applicant No.l and the appellant/non-applicant No.2 has been saddled with the liability to sotisfy the award simply because he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The parl-jes herein shall be referred <xs per the description given in the claims tribund. 2) From perusal of the record of the claims tribunal it appears thart- initially the ctaimants had preferred a petition before the tribuna! arraying nonaB applicant No.l-Hemlal as the owner of vehicle* However, non-applicant No.l has denied the ownership of offending yehicle and stated thot Hemant Katakwar ig the owner of offending vehicle, this fact was kn<%yrs to the claimants even then the petition has been filed in collusion with sdd Hemant Katakvmr without arraying him. After reply of the non- appticant No,l the cldmants have amended the claim petition and arrayed the appellant herein as non-applicant No.2 in the cldm petition describing ht'm as the owner of the vehicle. 3) The non-applicant No.2 in his writfen stotement denied the ownership of the vehicle oaid stcri-ed that the motorcycle was sold by hi'm to non- applicant No*l in the month of September, 2004 and also delivered the possession of the vehicle along with necessary documents for trcaisfer of the vehjcle to non-applicant No.l and in fact, non-applicoBit No.l was the owner of the vehicle. It was pleaded that one Ashok Kumdr Lodha is the witnegs of the fact thot the motorcycle was trangferred from non- applicant No.2 to non-applicant No.l and possession was delivered. 4) Learned claims tribunal passed the impugned anward with a finding thaf the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.l rashly & negligently and thereby caused accident resulting in deoth of Sopalram, non-appliccmt No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and accordingly, an award of Rs.1,95,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. fromthe date of filing of the appljcation i.e. 11.7*2005. It wo^ furt-her held fhat non-applicant No.l <& 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to gatisfy the award. 5) Learned counsel for the non-appticant No.2 submits thcrt- the non- applicant No.2 has sotd the vehicle to non-applicant No.l for a consideratjon of Rs.lO^OOOAIn the month of September, 2004* The transaction was fjnalized in the presence of Ashok Kumar, he has handed over the pqiers to Hemtal and he had applied to the R.T.O. for transfer of the vehicle in the month of May, 2005 vide Ex.D-1. In the FJ.R. also Hemlal has been shown as the owner of the vehicle. R.C. Book of the offending vehicle was 'm possession of Hemtal and the same was seized from him vide seizure memo of Ex.P-3. Non-applicant No.2 has also filed the affidavit of Ashok Kumar before the tribunal in which said Ashok Kumar has stort-ed that non-applicant No.2 has sold his motorcycle to Hemlal Sahu through him and after the sale the vehicle was handed over to Hemtol along with original papers and necessary documentis for transfer. Reiying upon the judgments in the moitters of Balwant Sir^h Vs. Jhannubai and others report-ed in 1980 ^.C.J. 126 (MP); Panna Lat Vs. Shri Chand Mal and others reported in 1^0 A.C.J. 233; Sumathy and others Vs. Raghavan and others reported in 1997 ACJ 260 (Kerala); Mathew Thankachan Vs. V.6. Mahoharan and others reported in 1999 ACJ 275 (Kera(o), it is contended that the cpmpletjon of sale of motor vehicle is not dependent on the transfer of its r'egistrart-ion certificcrt-e. It has to be decided in terms of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which deals with as to how a contract of sale is to be made when there is an offer to buy or sell goods for a price and acceptance of such offer, it can be said that a contract of sale is made as contempJoted under sub-section(15, therefore. the essentiai pre- requisites for a contract of sate between two persons are the offer to buy or sell goods for a price by one person <md acceptcaice of such offer by another person, Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provideg that a contract for salemay be made in writjng or by word of mouth or partly m writing cmd partly by word of mouth or may be implied from the conduct of the parties and it is setl-led position that the sale o-f motor cycle is govemed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 dnd is complete when the consideration is paid and the vehicle is delivered irrespective of the fact that the sale ^•'^ has been registered with the Registering Authority or not. Payment of price and delivery of the vehicle make the transaction complete and the title will pass to the purchaser under the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. For transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle mutation of certjficote i5 not necessary* Obli'gation to register the vehicle is for controlling and regulori-ing the movements of the vehicle by the authorjties under the Act. The vehicle can be sold <md purchased without following the procedure prescribed in Section 31 of the Act. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.S/non-applicant No.l submitted thot the onus of proving thot the non-applicant No*2 had transferred the motor cycle to non-applicant No.l is on the non-applicant No.2. Non-applicant No.l is a Carpenter, whereas, non-applicant No.2 is a saw mill owner <md deals in timber. Non-applicant No.l had business transactjons with him and on the date of incident, non-applicant No.2 had sent the non-applicont No.l in connection with his work in his motorcycle when the unfort'unat'e accident occurred, Non-applicant No*2 continued to be the registered owner of the motorcycle tili AAay, 2005 and no document about the transfer has been produced by the non-applicant No.2. Non-applicant No.2 has claimed that consideration of motorcycle was pdd through Ashok Kumar, however, Ashok Kumar has not been examined and in these circumstances the stand of non-applicant No.2 that he had in fact transferred the vehicle to non-applicant No.l is not established. 7) So for as the principles of law laid down in the vcrious judgments cited by learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 and which have been reproduced in foregoing paragraphs, the same has not been controvert-ed, as the low as propounded in these judgments is the settted law. The only questJon to be considered for deciding this appeal ig whether on the basis of materiaj avdlable cn record the non-applicant No*2 hag been able to e$tablish that the ownership of offending vehicle stood transferred to the non-applicant No.l in accordance with the Section 5 of the Sale of Goods Act? Roshan/- 8) The tribunal congidering the admissjon of non-appjjcant No<2 in hi5 deposition thort- no deed was executed ori- the time of trmsfer and also considering the fact that the transad-ion was finalized in the presence of Ashok Kumar, who has paid the congjderation, but A^hok Kumar has not been examined as a witness by the non-applicant No*2 who could have confirmed the sole, has drown adverse inference agdnst the non- applicant No*2 thot in fact no transaction was made in prefience of said Ashok Kumar. Since the non-applicant No.2 had pleaded that- he was not the owner of the vehicle on the dote of accident becau^e he had gold the vehicle to the non-applicant No.l, the onus to prove thi>g pteading was that of the non-applicant No.2, however, non-applicant No2 has failed to digcharge the onus of proving the sale of vehicte and therefore, the non- appljcant No.2 wss also liabfe for sati^fying the award along with non- appjicant No.l who was driving the vehicle. . 9) The above finding of the cldms tribunal is based on the evidence available on record and particuJarly on the statement of non-applicant No.2 himself and therefore, there is no illegdity or infirmity in the conclusion of the learned claims tribunal that the non-applicant No<2 ha3 failed to prove that he had transfewed the vehicle to non-applicant No.l. 10) In the result, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award, the appeal being devojd of subst-ancfi deserves to be dismiss%d and the same is hereby dismissed* No order as to costg. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge