CR No. 4417 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 4417 of 2010 Date of decision:- 09.12.2010 Chuhar Singh. ....Petitioner Vs. Baldev Kaur and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 to 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) ****** The challenge in the present petition is an order passed by the learned trial court on 11.06.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for impleading Darshan Singh, the alleged owner of the offending bus, was dismissed. Respondents no.1 to 4 herein, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for claiming compensation on account of death of Jaswinder Singh son of Baldev Singh. As per the claimants, the offending bus was owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC alleging therein that he has sold the vehicle to one Darshan Singh on 25.10.2008. The learned trial court has dismissed the application inter alia for the reasons that the petitioner continued to be recorded as registered owner of the vehicle and thus, the petitioner cannot rely upon the transfer of the vehicle in favour of Darshan Singh. CR No. 4417 of 2010 2 The question, whether registered owner can be said to be the owner of the vehicle, has been examined by this court in R.S.A. No. 262 of 2007 titled 'Munni Ram Vs. Fakir Chand and another, decided on 05.10.2009, wherein it was held that the registration certificate is not the true proof in respect of the ownership of the movable property. It was held to the following effect:- “Under Section 40 of the MV Act, 1998, every owner of a motor vehicle is to cause the vehicle to be registered. Similarly, Section 41 of the MV Act, 1988, deals with the application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration. Therefore, the word owner appearing in Chapter IV in the context will not mean a registered owner as the vehicle is yet to be registered and for which application is required to be made for registration. Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988, is pari materia with Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939. A conjoint reading of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988, shows that if the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer, the registering authority may require the transferor or the transferee to pay such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5) in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177. Sub-section (5) contemplates that the State Government may prescribe different amount having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub- section (2). It, thus, transpires that the ownership of a movable property is not dependent upon the entries in the registration certificate. For the delay in seeking mutation of change in the registration certificate, the transferor or the transferee, as the case may be, can be CR No. 4417 of 2010 3 penalized and proceeded against in terms of Section 177 of the MV Act, 1988. Such default is again compoundable on payment of prescribed fee under sub- section (5) of Section 50 of the MV act, but the ownership of the movable property is not dependent upon the registration certificate. From the judgments aforesaid, it transpires that the act of transfer of owner in the registration certificate in terms of Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939 or in terms of Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988 is required to be performed by the transferee. If the transferee does not effect the ownership transferred in the registration certificate in his name, it may liable him for punishment in terms of Section 112 of the MV Act, 1939 and 177 of the MV Act, 1988 but the property in the vehicle will stand transferred in terms of Section 19 of the Goods Act, when it was intended, it being movable property.” It will be a question of fact that the petitioner has transferred the vehicle to Darshan Singh on 25.10.2008 and such question of fact can be decided in the presence of Darshan Singh only. Therefore, I find that the order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sangrur, is not tenable in the eyes of law. In view of the said fact, the said order is set aside. Darshan Singh is ordered to be impleaded as respondent in the claim application. Learned Tribunal shall decide the claim application expeditiously by giving limited opportunities to lead evidence to the parties, so that the claim application is decided by the end of December, 2011. Disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) 9.12.2010 JUDGE aj