Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh vs Jaswinder Kaur And Ors on 5 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: September 04, 2024
Date of Decision: September 05, 2024
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
Baljinder Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Mr. Mohit Giri and
Mr. Ravi Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants
Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No.6.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Whether a person recorded as registered owner of the
offending vehicle in the Cer)ficate of Registra)on, remains liable to pay
the compensa)on amount to a third party, i.e. legal representa)ves of
the deceased or the injured claimant, as the case may be, despite sale of
the offending vehicle to some other person, is the precise ques)on
involved in the present appeal.
2. Facts, in brief, are that on 28.04.2016, a motor vehicular
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Alto Car bearing
registra)on No.PB-08BP-3054, resul)ng in the death of one Fateh Singh.
The offending car was being driven at the relevant )me by Baljinder
Singh S/o Bikram Singh (respondent No.5 herein). The registered owner
of the car, as per the cer)ficate of registra)on, was Baljinder Singh S/o
Sardool Singh (appellant herein). The owner in possession of the car was
Bikram Singh (respondent No.6 herein) and the car was insured by ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (not impleaded as party to
Page no.1 out of 6 pages
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
this appeal). The legal representa)ves (respondents N: 1 to 4 herein) of
deceased - Fateh Singh filed claim pe))on before Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereina>er referred as 'the Tribunal'). Vide Award
dated 25.02.2021, compensa)on of ₹66,94,736/- alongwith interest was
awarded to claimants payable jointly and severally by the driver,
registered owner and owner in possession of the offending vehicle. It
was also held by the Tribunal that registered owner Baljinder Singh S/o
Sardool Singh (appellant herein) will be at liberty to take appropriate
proceedings as per law against the driver and owner in possessions of
the offending vehicle for recovery of compensa)on amount as paid to
the claimants.
3. The conten)on of learned counsel for the appellant is that
he had sold the offending vehicle to Bhandari Car Bhandar on
14.11.2014, i.e. much prior to the date of accident. On the same day, the
car was sold by Bhandari Car Bhandar to Indian Car Bhandar, which
further sold it on 14.01.2016 to Bikram Singh S/o Gurdit Singh
(respondent No.6 herein), who even applied for change of ownership in
his name to the concerned authority. Learned counsel contends that in
these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensa)on.
4. It is not in dispute that though the appellant had sold the
vehicle on 14.11.2014, but on the date of accident, it is the appellant,
who was recorded to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle in
the cer)ficate of registra)on.
5. The issue as involved in the present appeal was discussed at
length by this Court in FAO No.3242 of 2024 )tled as "Savinder Singh v.
Binder Singh and others", decided on 15.07.2024 and it was held as
under:-
"5. The issue involved in this appeal was considered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. T. V. Jose v/s Chacko P. M. Alias
Page no.2 out of 6 pages
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
Thankachan AIR 2001 SC 3939 and it was held as under:-
"Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submiHed that the High
Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on record. He
submiHed that the oral evidence clearly showed that the Appellant
was not the owner of the car on the date of the accident. Mr. Iyer
submiHed that merely because the name had not been changed in the
records of the R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle
had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer submiHed that the real owner of
the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submiHed that Mr. Roy Thomas
had been made party Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed
out that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy
Thomas but had then applied for and was permiHed to withdraw the
appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been duly
served and a public no)ce had also been issued. He pointed out that
Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in these Appeals. He
submiHed that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy Thomas.
We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in
holding that the Appellant con)nued to be the owner as the name had
not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of )tle
by payment of considera)on and delivery of the car. The evidence on
record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred.
However, the Appellant s)ll con)nued to remain liable to third par)es
as his name con)nued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The Appellant
could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in
these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or
the High Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the
ques)on of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy
Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings
against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is en)tled to do so."
This decision was later on followed in Anamika Vs. Jaipal Singh's case
(supra), which has also been referred by the Ld. Tribunal.
6. Apart from above, in Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar AIR
2018 SC 983, the issue was considered at length by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. A>er ci)ng a catena of authori)es, it was held by the Apex Court
Page no.3 out of 6 pages
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
as under:-
"12 The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above
decisions is that in view of the defini)on of the expression 'owner' in Sec)on
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 hypotheca)on, the person in possession of the vehicle under that
agreement is treated as the owner. In a situa)on such as the present where
the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but con)nues 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 consciously
introduced the defini)on of the expression 'owner' in Sec)on 2(30), making a
departure from the provisions of Sec)on 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The
principle underlying the provisions of Sec)on 2(30) is that the vic)m of a
motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased
vic)m should not be le> in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for
compensa)on 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 interpreta)on 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 Sec)on 2(30). The
liability to pay compensa)on stands fastened upon him. AdmiHedly, the
vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruc)on
of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.
13. The submission of the Pe))oner is that a failure to in)mate the
transfer will only result in a fine under Sec)on 50(3) but will not invalidate the
transfer of the vehicle. In Dr T V Jose, this Court observed that there can be
transfer of )tle by payment of considera)on and delivery of the car. But for
the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of
the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of
Sec)on 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be
fulfilled."
[underlined por)on emphasised by this court]
Page no.4 out of 6 pages
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
6. Thus, the consistent view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court
right from TV Jose's case (supra) )ll Naveen Kumar's case (supra) and
Anamika's case (supra), is that the registered owner is responsible for
paying the compensa)on and he cannot escape from his liability merely
by sale of the vehicle prior to accident.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in "Pushpa
@ Leela and others v. Shakuntala and others", 2011(2) RCR(Civil) 616, it
was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that notwithstanding sale of
the vehicle, neither the transferor nor the transferee had taken any step
for the change of the name of the owner in the cer)ficate or registra)on
of the vehicle and in view of the submission, the registered owner was
held to be deemed to con)nue as owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel
contends that in the present case, the transferee of the vehicle had
already applied for transfer of the vehicle in his name and therefore, the
appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensa)on amount.
8. I am afraid that the aforesaid conten)on is devoid of any
merits, as even in Pushpa @ Leela's case (supra) cited by learned
counsel for the appellant, the registered owner of the vehicle was held
to be liable to pay the compensa)on. It is immaterial as to whether the
transferor/transferee had taken any steps for transferring the vehicle in
the name of the transferee or not before the concerned authority. The
material is that on the date of accident, who is the registered owner of
the vehicle. In case, the transferor is s)ll the registered owner of the
vehicle, he shall be liable to pay compensa)on amount to the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to
"Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and another", Law Finder Doc Id #
540454, in which case, a fatal road accident was caused by a bus, which
was not insured and was under requisi)on of the State Government. It
was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that Government will be considered
Page no.5 out of 6 pages
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115814
FAO-2779-2021 (O&M)
as owner of the vehicle and liable to pay compensa)on, as it is the
Government, which was in control and possession of the vehicle.
10. This authority as cited by learned counsel for the appellant
was also considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Naveen Kumar's case
(supra) and was dis)nguishable on the facts by holding that in that case,
vehicle had been requisi)oned by the State Government on the date of
accident, which in its very nature was involuntary, in so far as the person
whose property is requisi)oned, is concerned. As such, it is held that
said authority of Purnya Kala Devi's case (supra) does not advance the
case of the appellant.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
September 05, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.6 out of 6 pages
6 of 6
