FAO No.5515 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5515 of 2010 Date of Decision. 21.09.2010 Naresh son of Sultan, resident of village Ghasera, Tehsil and District Rewari ......Appellant Versus Surajmukhi wd/o late Attar Singh age 40 years and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.5516 of 2010 Naresh son of Sultan, resident of village Ghasera, Tehsil and District Rewari ......Appellant Versus Savita Devi wd/o late Khajan Singh, age 44 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The order impugned cast the liability on a person, who is purported to have purchased the vehicle but not registered the same with the authorities under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The contention in appeal by such owner transferee is to the effect that the registered owner of the vehicle was only the 4th respondent before the Tribunal and the liability could not be fastened on him. It was further sought to be contended that even the document of FAO No.5515 of 2010 -2- transfer referred to by the registered owner was a fabrication and cannot be relied on. 2. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence tendered by the registered owner made reference to the affidavit which the 2nd respondent had given on taking delivery of the truck and the payment of the consideration for the vehicle. The registered owner also had given a statement to the effect that he has signed form No.29 and 30 and handed over the same to the appellant. Based on the evidence tendered by the registered owner relating to the affidavit taking delivery of property and producing the same, the Tribunal held that there had been a valid transfer and only the 2nd respondent has to be treated as the owner of the vehicle and exonerated the 4th respondent. 3. It is significant that the appellant did not examine himself to deny the evidence given by the registered owner that he had transferred the vehicle. He merely referred to the fact that the vehicle had still not been taken delivery from the police and therefore, if he had been owner, he would have taken the delivery of the same. When positive evidence had been led against him with reference to documents, the fact that the appellant stayed away from the witness box would lead to an adverse inference that if he had taken the witness stand, he would have had to admit the documents attributed to him. The Tribunal was, under the circumstances, justified in holding that the appellant was the owner and made him liable. In relation to a motor vehicle, the transfer of ownership is effected only by receipt of consideration and delivery FAO No.5515 of 2010 -3- and the provisions of Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act were squarely applicable. Requirement for registration and submission of the necessary forms are merely the requirements of law for certain obligations under the Act and they have no bearing to the transfer of ownership itself. This has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VASANTHA VISWANATHAN & ORS. Vs. V.K. ELAYALWAR & ORS. 2001 (8) SCC 133. 4. The appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 21, 2010 Pankaj*