K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE cost as ordered has been paid.
(2.) THE appellant before this court is the person who was registered owner of the vehicle that was admittedly involved in the accident. The accident had taken place on 08.03.2006. His contention in defence was that at the relevant time of the accident, the vehicle had been transferred to Kishan Lal and transfer was effected by delivery and an affidavit had also been given by him. A person said to be Devi Singh son of Girdhar was examined as RW2 who vouched for the fact that the vehicle was transferred and the property delivered to Kishan Lal. The petition was filed by the claimant only against the registered owner and Kishan Lal was added as a party subsequently as respondent No.2 -A. He was served with a notice through court but he had chosen to remain ex parte. His own driver -1st respondent also remained ex parte. The Tribunal held that the registered owner would be liable and passed the award against the second respondent. The decision is erroneous and it is bound to be set aside. Instances where the Tribunal would be competent to pass an award against a registered owner would be cases when there is no other person other than the registered owner who is made answerable to the claim. If the registered owner makes out a defence that he had transferred the vehicle to yet another person and the transferee is also made as a party, then the Tribunal is bound to enter a finding on whether there had been a transfer of vehicle or not. Registration of vehicle will not at all times conclude the issue of ownership. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act which details a procedure for transfer of ownership is a facilitative provision intended to make available in official records the person who would be prima facie responsible for payment of road tax and to make possible enforcements against a registered owner. If there is ever an issue that is brought for an adjudication of who the owner was, the court cannot simply wear blinkers and refuse to adjudicate with reference to the evidence tendered before it. This assumes significance because a motor vehicle is "goods" within the definition in the Sale of Goods Act and as per Section 19 of the said Act, the ownership in the goods is transferred by delivery. In Vasantha Viswanathan Versus V.K. Elayalwar -(2001) 8 SCC 133, the Supreme Court clarified that the ownership of a vehicle will be transferred by delivery and the registration is not all times sine qua non. In this case, if the registered owner gave evidence of transfer and brought evidence through affidavit signed by the purchaser and had also gave evidence through an independent witness who testified to the transfer, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference on the part of the person said to be the subsequent purchaser in avoiding the witness -stand.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kishan Lal has an argument to make that at the time of evidence, the appellant had denied that he had transferred the vehicle. I have not been shown through such an admission, but if it exists, the case cannot be decided on a chance of admission or what he failed to deny. The substantive evidence was that he had transferred the vehicle and brought through documentary and oral evidence. The subsequent purchaser did not take courage to come to court. The liability cast was clearly wrong.;