Point of Law : Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that by itself would not absolve the person in whose name the vehicle stands in the registration certificate, from liability to a third party. So long as the name of the registered owner continues in the certificate of registration in the records of the RTO, that person as an owner would continue to be liable to a third party under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

In a motor accident claim case involving transfer of the vehicle, the correctness of the liability fastened upon the transferee and driver of the vehicle to satisfy the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (learned Tribunal in short) is in question in this appeal.

2. One Sh. Yugal Kishore died in a motor accident on 04.08.2010. His wife, two minor children and parents preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act hereinafter). The vehicle in question was registered in the name of Smt. Rajni Gupta (respondent No.6). The insurance policy of the vehicle on the date of accident was also in the name of registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle, however, was transferred in the name of Anil Kumar (appellant No.1). The transferee of the vehicle had admitted purchasing the vehicle from its registered owner (transferor). The facts regarding transfer of vehicle were admittedly not disclosed to the insurer of the vehicle (respondent No.7). The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 15.12.2017, allowed compensation of Rs.10,29,700/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization in favour of the claimants. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon Sh. Anil Kumar (transferee of the vehicle) and Sh. Kewal Krishan (driver of the vehicle having been held liable to satisfy the award, the transferee and the driver of the vehicle have preferred the instant appeal.

3. Contentions

3(i). Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of respondent No.6 (Smt. Rajni Gupta). The insurance policy of the vehicle was also standing in the name of its registered owner Smt. Rajni Gupta. The insurer was respondent No.7-Company. The accident involving the vehicle in question that resulted in death of Sh. Yugal Kishore, had occurred on 04.08.2010. The insurance policy was alive on that date. There was privity of contract between the registered owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.7 on the date of the accident. The liability to satisfy the award, therefore was incorrectly fastened upon the appellants. It should have been borne by the insurer of the vehicle. In support of such contentions, reliance was placed upon (2020) 11 SCC 745 titled Balwant Singh and Sons Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another.

3(ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.6, the registered owner and transferor of the vehicle while supplementing the submissions of the appellants, contended that the learned Tribunal had not properly scrutinized the documents while fastening the liability to pay the compensation amount upon the appellants. The finding that there was no privity of contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, was incorrect and de hors the documents placed on record. On the date of accident, the registered owner of the vehicle was respondent No.6. The insurance policy of the vehicle was standing in the name of respondent No.6 on the date of accident. Hence, it was respondent No.6 and consequently the Insurance Company (respondent No.7), which should have borne the liability to pay the compensation amount.

3(iii) Learned senior counsel for respondent No.7 (Insurer) strenuously defended the impugned award. Referring to various documents placed on record including the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, the insurance policy and the statement of appellant No.1 (transferee of the vehicle), it was contended that the insurance policy was though in the name of respondent No.6, but the address given therein was that of appellant No.1. That appellant No.1, while appearing in the witness-box as RW-1, had admitted having purchased the vehicle from its registered owner i.e. respondent No.6 in the year 2002. No information w.r.t. purchase of the vehicle was imparted to the Insurance Company either by the transfer