FAO No. 2113 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2113 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.4.2010 Gurnam Singh ..... Appellant vs Smt. Manju Rani and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. Owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the award dated 19.3.2008, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant and respondent no. 4 Sudesh Kumar @ Desa were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. The appellant was held liable to pay the compensation amount first. Briefly, the facts are that on 12.1.2004, when Iqbal Mohammad and his brother Shamshad were going from Ladwa to Yamuna Nagar, they were hit by a Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05-A-7244, driven by Sudesh Kumar @ Desa. Both Iqbal Mohammad and Shamshad fell down and suffered injuries on their persons. They were shifted to Civil Hospital, Radaur from where they were shifted to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, where Iqbal Mohammad succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 8 dated 13.1.2004 was registered with Police Station, Radaur. The claimants filed claim petition which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant and respondent no. 4 Sudesh Kumar @ Desa were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. As the offending vehicle was in the name of the appellant, the learned Tribunal directed him to first pay the compensation to the claimant vide award dated 19.3.2008. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding him as owner and to pay the compensation are perverse as he had already sold the vehicle vide affidavit, Ex. R1, to one Mohinder Singh son of Hakam Singh, resident of Village Gumthala Rao, District Yamuna Nagar on 9.4.2003. FAO No. 2113 of 2008 -2- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the testimony of the appellant with regard to the affidavit, Ex. R1, because the offending vehicle was still in the name of the appellant. It has also no where come in the evidence that the said vehicle was insured or not. Apparently, the offending vehicle was not insured, the appellant is trying to put the burden of compensation on the other person by creating an affidavit. The only issue, which requires consideration by this Court is as to who is liable to satisfy the award where the vehicle had been allegedly transferred from one person to another but such transfer has not been given effect to with the registering authority. This issue has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts. In Champalal v. Ramchander and another, AIR 1976 Rajasthan 75, Rajasthan High Court held as under: “Then Sec. 31 provides for a transfer of ownership of any such vehicle. It follows from the provisions referred to above that the registration certificate is an essential requirement before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued would obviously be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure contemplated under Section 31 has to be followed and till any such transfer is entered in the certificate of registration, it has to be presumed that the person in whose favour such certificate of registration stands, is the owner.” In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. And others, 2001 ACJ 2059, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealing with a similar proposition opined as under: “10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Roy Thomas in these appeals. Roy Thomas was not a party either before the MACT or the FAO No. 2113 of 2008 -3- High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so.” A Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur and others, 2007 ACJ 1249, referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. T.V.Jose's case (supra) opined that a registered owner of the vehicle was liable to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. However, it was left open to the appellant therein to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the vendee, as claimed in that case. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, the appeal filed by the registered owner of the vehicle is without any merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, he would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law against the person to whom the vehicle had been allegedly sold. 29.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge