FAO No.2067 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2067 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 07.03.2011 Mahender son of Kanshi Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Smt. Farmina widow of Mahammad Tarif and others....Respondents Present: Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 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. The appeal is by the legal representatives of the deceased transferee of the vehicle. The contention in appeal is that the transferee was not a registered owner. It has to be noticed that the case has been filed against the registered owner, transferee as well as the insurer. In such a situation, a decree passed against a subsequent purchaser is perfectly justified, for the transfer of the vehicle takes place by delivery under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act and not through only the registration that is required to be done under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The distinction between the transfer of a vehicle effected through delivery and the effect of such delivery for constituting a complete transfer is brought out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others Vs. V.K. Elayalwara nd others 2001(8) SCC 133. FAO No.2067 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2. The award casting the liability jointly and severally on the subsequent transferee is, therefore, justified. The liability for the appellants as legal representatives shall be only to the extent of the estate inherited by them and shall not be a personal liability on the appellants. 3. Subject to this observation, the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 07, 2011 Pankaj*