The obligations under Section 50 and Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the transfer and change of residence of a motor vehicle owner, influenced the court's decision in dismissing the petition and appeal.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. The petition (CM main no.1324/2009) and appeal (MAC APP. 637/2009) arise out of different orders of motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) in relation to the same proceedings and have bearing on each other.

Since certain common questions of fact and law arise, both have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment.

2. Urmil Kanta died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 08:00 AM on 26.07.1995 while alighting from bus bearing registration no.DL-1P-2305 (described as the offending vehicle) at its bus stop opposite Tis Hazari Courts. She suffered injuries on account of fall statedly as a result of bus having been moved forward with a jerk by its driver. She succumbed to the said injuries. On this account, her husband Mahender Pal Gupta with two children Karuna Gupta and Tarun Gupta brought claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) before the tribunal which was registered as suit no.220/2002 (old no.578/1995). The said claimants impleaded the petitioner/appellant Bahadur Singh Yadav as the second respondent in the claim petition on the ground that he was the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

3. It may be mentioned at the outset that the bus was, and has continued to be, registered in the name of the petitioner/appellant till date. According to the case set up before the tribunal, the bus was driven by Narpal Singh, who was impleaded as the third respondent in the claim petition, in addition to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (impleaded as first respondent before the tribunal) on the averment that the offending vehicle was insured with it against third party risk for the relevant period. It may be noted here itself that the insurance cover could not be proved and, thus, the said insurance company stood exonerated to pay or indemnify.

4. The record of the tribunal shows that the petitioners’ particulars were given in the claim petition as B. S. Yadav son of M. C. Yadav, resident of RZ-6, Partap garden New Delhi. It has been fairly conceded by his counsel at hearing that this was his correct address and as per registration certificate of the offending vehicle. Though it is his contention that he had later changed his residence to a property which is described as RZ-6-C Partap Garden, New Delhi, it is also fairly conceded that no intimation about the change of address was given by the petitioner/appellant to the registering authority at any point of time.

5. The tribunal’s record further shows that a notice addressed to the petitioner/appellant on the claim petition was duly served at the address given in the cause title which, it bears repetition, is same as the one noted by the registering authority in respect of the offending vehicle. The tribunal’s record further reveals that a counsel appeared purportedly representing the petitioner/appellant on 20.03.1997 and filed a written statement in answer to the claim petition with reply to an interim application, both dated 16.07.1996. In subsequent proceedings, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner/appellant or, for that matter, on behalf of the driver Narpal Singh. Thus, both were set exparte.

6. Against the above-said backdrop, the tribunal held inquiry into the claim petition and decided it by judgment dated 13.05.2003 holding the petitioner/appellant and the driver (third respondent before the tribunal) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants which was assessed in the sum of Rs. 4,64,000/-, with interest levied at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner/appellant that in the wake of process issued on the execution proceedings taken out by the claimants on the basis of the aforementioned judgment of the tribunal, a bailiff visited his premises on 17.05.2005 which resulted in he being made aware of the judgment of the tribunal holding him jointly and severally l