FAO No.5397 of 2006(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.5397 of 2006(O&M) M/s Vedic Handloom Industries ... Appellant VERSUS Parveen Kumari and others ... Respondents and FAO No.5398 of 2006(O&M) M/s Vedic Handloom Industries ... Appellant VERSUS Parveen Kumari and others ... Respondents Decided on : August 27, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the claimants. Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr.Virender Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.9. FAO No.5397 of 2006(O&M) [ 2 ] A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.5397 and 5398 of 2006, challenging the award dated 9.8.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal, vide which compensation to the tune of Rs.3,28,000/- was awarded in Claim Petition No.4 of 2003 titled “Parveen Kumari and others vs. Ranjeet and others” and Rs.15,000/- were awarded in Claim Petition No.5 of 2003 titled “Parveen Kumari vs. Ranjeet and others”. The accident took place on 9.10.2002. The appellant, owner of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.HR06D-6180 (the offending vehicle) has pleaded that it had already transferred the motor cycle in the name of Rakesh Kumar – respondent No.8 on 24.4.2001, who further transferred it to Rajeev Kumar – respondent No.9 on 5.5.2001. Further, said Rajeev Kumar transferred it to Gurbaz Singh – respondent No.10 on 3.7.2001. Though, the appellant had already transferred the vehicle, yet its ownership could not be changed before the Registering Authorities, therefore, its name remained entered in the Registration Certificate. Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that respondent No.9 Rajeev Kumar, while appearing in the witness-box admitted that he had purchased the offending vehicle and transferred it to Gurbaj Singh – respondent No.10. Neither Ranjeet Singh – respondent No.8, to whom the appellant allegedly had sold the vehicle, nor Gurbaj Singh, who allegedly is the present owner of the vehicle, have been examined. It is evidence on the record that the offending motor cycle is still in the name of the appellant and the same has not been entered in the name FAO No.5397 of 2006(O&M) [ 3 ] of any of the aforesaid other vendees. No document has been brought on record to establish the transfer of the motor cycle from the appellant to any person. The appellant has asserted that vide the receipt (Ex.R1), he had transferred the vehicle, but no affidavit with regard to the sale or any other document from the office of the Registering Authority has been proved on the record to establish the sale to respondent No.7. Similar is the position with regard to the subsequent sale-transactions to respondents No.8,9 and 10, respectively. Thus, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case Dr.T.V.Jose vs. Chacko P.M.alias Thankachan, 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 120, it could well be said that the registered owner was responsible to indemnify the claim. However, he could lay claim against the subsequent purchasers, if he so desires. But, since it is well-settled by now that only registered owner is liable to satisfy the claim, the impugned award does not warrant interference. Appeals dismissed. August 27, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE