Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahinder vs Pal Singh And Others on 3 September, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
112 FAO-4134-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 03.09.2024
MAHINDER .... Appellant
VERSUS
PAL SINGH AND OTHERS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-15156-CII-2024
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the main appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 26 days in filing the main appeal is condoned.
FAO-4134-2024
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
challenging the award dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fazilka (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on the
ground that the appellant could not have been held responsible for the
accident inasmuch as he had sold the vehicle i.e. tractor Eicher 241 bearing
registration No.PB-60-A-7179 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending
vehicle') to respondent No.4 herein.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the claimants themselves had impleaded the subsequent purchaser of the
112 FAO-4134-2024 (O&M) -2-
offending vehicle as a party and hence it has been admitted by both the
parties that the offending vehicle had been sold to respondent No.4 herein.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the appellant is admittedly the registered
owner of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor Eicher 241 bearing registration
No.PB-60-A-7179 though it has been contended that the same stood sold to
respondent No.4 on the basis of an affidavit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Naveen Kumar V/s Vijay Kumar & Ors. [2018 (2) RCR
(Civil) 74] has held as under :
"12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges
from the above decisions is that in view of the definition
of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30), it is the
person in whose name the motor vehicle stands
registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be
treated as the 'owner'. However, where a person is a
minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the
owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement
of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in
possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated
as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the
registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle
but continues to be reflected in the records of the
registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he
would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has
112 FAO-4134-2024 (O&M) -3-
consciously introduced the definition of the expression
'owner' in Section 2(30), making a departure from the
provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The
principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is
that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a
death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not
be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for
compensation ought not to be burdened with following a
trail of successive transfers, which are not registered
with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would
be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act.
Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the
fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the
First respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved
in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The
liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him.
Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court
has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments
of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar
(supra) has laid down that the registered owner of the offending vehicle
cannot be absolved of his responsibility as long as the vehicle is registered in
his name. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further noticed that where a
registered owner has purportedly sold and transferred the vehicle but
112 FAO-4134-2024 (O&M) -4-
continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the
owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of the liability.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
8. Needless to say that the appellant would always be at liberty to
initiate proceedings for recovery against respondent No.4 in accordance with
law.
03.09.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
