FAO No.3475 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3475 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:09.05.2011 Tejinder Singh resident of 29/30 Gurgopal Nagar, Cool Road, near Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar (registered owner of car bearing No.PB-08-E- 1441) .......Appellant Versus Amarjit Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh son of Nirmal Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal by the registered owner is against the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that on the date of accident he had transferred the vehicle to the 2nd respondent and he was not the registered owner. It is admitted by the appellant that he had not informed the Transport Authority that he had an affidavit from the purchaser to show that he had took possession of the vehicle and that he would become liable for any eventuality of claim against the owner. 3. Learned counsel states that the award could not have been passed against the registered owner. The contention conflicts with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko 2001 (8) SCC 748. In that case, the subsequent purchaser was FAO No.3475 of 2011(O&M) -2- sought to be impleaded as party in the appeal proceedings and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the award passed against registered owner had granted an opportunity to the registered owner to recover it from the subsequent purchaser in independent proceedings. In this case, since the subsequent purchaser is also a party, in the event of recovery made by the claimants against the registered owner, the registered owner will be entitled to recover contribution against the subsequent purchaser in the very same execution proceedings and it is not necessary for the appellant to file any independent suit for recovery. 4. With these observations, the award passed already by the Tribunal stands confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 09, 2011 Pankaj*