In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 3172 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 18, 2009 Jagtar Singh .. Appellant Vs. Harish Chander Ahuja and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal has arisen out of the award dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,546/- to the claimant-respondent No.1, appellant (herein referred as 'the claimant') and Ashok Kumar-respondent No.2. The brief resume of facts is that accident occurred on 19.2.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.PB64-5287, by respondent No.2 which was originally owned by Jagtar Singh appellant and sold to the respondent No.2, vide affidavit dated 17.2.2006 and the possession of the said vehicle was handed over to him. The respondent No.1-Ashok Kumar, now respondent No.2 (herein referred as 'the respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex- parte and only respondent No.1 (now appellant) contested the claim petition stating that he had already sold the offending vehicle on 17.2.2006, therefore, he is not responsible for the payment. The Tribunal had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries during vehicular accident which took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB64-5287 by Ashok Kumar?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Relief. F.A.O. No. 3172 of 2008 -2- *** The Tribunal while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant observed that the respondents would be jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the appellant Jagtar Singh has challenged the said award questioning his liability on the ground that since he had already transferred the car bearing registration No.PB-64-5287 to the respondent No.2 and the later had the control of the vehicle, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no denying a fact that the accident took place on 19.2.2006, whereas, according to the affidavits dated 17.2.2006 Annexure A-1 and A-2, he had allegedly transferred the offending car to the respondent No.2. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent No.2 has not contested the cause, yet the appellant was to prove that the registration stood transferred in favour of Ashok Kumar on the day of accident by proving the necessay documents on the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on two documents i.e. Annexure A-1 and A-2, which were exhibited before the trial court as R-1 and R-2. Exhibit R-1 is the affidavit given by Jagtar Singh selling the said car to Ashok Kumar respondent No.1. Similarly, affidavit Ex. R-2 reveals that Ashok Kumar has purchased the said car from Jagtar Singh appellant. Nonetheless, these documents were exhibited, but the same have not been proved according to law, therefore, the same cannot be treated as evidence. Mere exhibiting a document does not dispense with the mode of proof. The matter does not end here, Jagtar Singh would have summoned Ashok Kumar respondent to admit or deny the affidavit given by him. The affidavit given by Jagtar Singh, at the same time, is an admission in his own favour. These documents were never acted upon. No information appears to have been given to the Registration Authority regarding the transfer of car to Ashok Kumar. As such, the appellant does not cease to be the owner. The word “owner” has been defined in Section 2 (19) of the 1939 Act to mean : “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, *** *** *** (19) “owner” means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in F.A.O. No. 3172 of 2008 -3- *** relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement” However, the said definition underwent a change by reason of Section 2 (30) of the 1988 Act. The amended provision is reproduced as under :- “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, *** *** *** (30) “owner”means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of the hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” The Apex Court dealt with the definition of owner and observed that till the ownership does not stand transferred in the records of R.T.O the registered owner continues to the liable to the 3rd party. Similar observations were made in case P.P. Mohammed V. K. Rajappan and others, 2003 ACJ 1595, wherein it was observed as under :- “4. These appeals are filed by the appellant. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to respondent No.4 and thereafter to respondent No.5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in case of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC), wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in the R.T.O. records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that F.A.O. No. 3172 of 2008 -4- *** the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in R.T.O records he remains liable to a third person.” Undoubtedly, at the first blush it appears, that these observations support the case of appellant. However, it has to be seen that the question whether the original owner gets absolved of his liability to a third party is not before the court. On examination of law on the issue, it is difficult to sustain the opinion. There may be transfer of rights between the original owner and those of transferee. The final decision is based on the terms of the contract between the parties, therefore, they cannot be drawn out of the context. It will accordingly have to be held that the appellant as the person in whose name registration continues, will remain liable to a third person. However, the person in actual possession and being the driver would also be liable. On perusal of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in P.P. Mohammed's case (supra) no iota of doubt remains in my mind to hold that unless the registration is transferred in the name of the transferee, though the transferee holds control of the vehicle, yet, the registered owner as well as the person who is in actual possession would both be liable to pay compensation. In this case also, though the vehicle was in control of Ashok Kumar but the registered owner remained Jagtar Singh, therefore, both would be liable. The Tribunal has rightly returned the findings qua the question of liability which cannot be interfered without any reason. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. August 18, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge