- (1.) The appeal is filed by a registered owner of the vehicle, who during the trial contended that the vehicle had been transferred to the 6th Respondent. The 6th Respondent-Sumer Chand, who was the purchaser, was the 2nd Respondent before the Tribunal and he had been represented through counsel Sh. O.K. Thakur. The fact of transfer of the vehicle was sought to be established through evidence by the registered owner. The fact of transfer in favour of the 2nd Respondent was itself not denied by the purchaser. On the other hand, the statement of Sumer Chand before the Police in the FIR No. 161 dated 2.8.2008 was that he had purchased the vehicle and the accident had taken place when his driver was driving the vehicle.
(2.) The procedure set out under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of ownership is only an evidence of ownership and not at all times conclusive. The transfer of title in a motor vehicle takes place by delivery and by passing of consideration for sale. The ownership in goods is transferred under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act and the distinction between the sale of goods and a transfer of ownership by registration under Section 50 was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and Ors. v. V.K. Elayalwara and Ors. 1, 2001 8 SCC 133. The Supreme Court held the following: Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lays down that where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under the Motor Vehicles Act is transferred, the transferor and transferee both are required to report the fact of transfer to the registering authority so that particulars of transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate. The transfer is not effected under Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but the same simply prescribes procedure for entering the factum of transfer in the registration certificate, which is an act posterior to the transfer. The transfer of vehicles in question would be governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act according to which property in the vehicle would pass to Defendant 1 at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. Thus the passing of property in the goods would be dependent upon the intention of the parties, as evidenced from the contract.
(3.) In a case where the subsequent purchaser is not made a party and the case is prosecuted against a registered owner only without any objection from the registered owner or without any steps being taken to implead the subsequent purchaser, a liability to be fastened on the registered owner could be perfectly understood. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant refers to a decision of this Court in Rulda Singh and Ors. v. Amarvir Kaur and Ors., 2009 155 PunLR 800 to the effect that the registered owner will still liable.;