The registered owner of a vehicle remains liable for compensation claims until formal transfer of ownership is executed, even if the vehicle is in the possession of another party.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.50 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, is the appellant.

2.Pleadings; The plaint in brief:

(a) The plaintiff is a stage carriage operator at Vellore, carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Sri Ramajayam Bus Service. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property, which is the motor vehicle with Regn.No.TN-63-U-4845 from one D.Sathishkumar, for consideration. The plaintiff has been using the said vehicle as a spare bus to ply his permitted route, namely Vellore to Thanipadi via Thiruvannamalai. The plaintiff had mortgaged the vehicle with M/s.Sundaram Finance for a loan amount of Rs.8 lakhs on 08.06.2018. The vehicle had become old and the plaintiff, with an intention to go with a latest model motor vehicle, informed middlemen in the business of resale of commercial vehicles. The defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to purchase the vehicle. After negotiations, a price of Rs.4,50,000/- was fixed and the plaintiff, after receiving the entire consideration from the defendant, handed over the vehicle to the defendant.

(b) The plaintiff, as promised, at his end, surrendered the spare bus permit he was holding and also foreclosed the loan with M/s.Sundaram Finance. The vehicle was handed over to the defendant on 19.12.2019 with a valid Fitness Certificate, as well as insurance, which was valid till 19.07.2020. The plaintiff signed all transfer forms and handed over the same to the defendant. It is the duty of the defendant, as purchaser, to effect name transfer, by submitting all documents and forms to the Regional Transport Officer concerned. On surrender of the plaintiff’s permit, the RTO, Thiruvannamalai has also transferred the documents to RTO, Palacode. The plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that the defendant had effected name transfer. However, he came to understand that the defendant had not effected transfer, when he received summons in several motor accident claim petitions, that had been filed before the Special Sub-Judge, (MACT), Dharmapuri.

(c) The defendant has been operating the vehicle without any valid permit and insurance policy. The defendant has plied the vehicle illegally, in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, as well as various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had caused an accident on 28.10.2020 and FIR in Crime No.246 of 2020 had been registered with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anchety Police Station. The plaintiff was not the owner of the vehicle on 28.10.2020, that is the date of accident and therefore, it was only the defendant, who had taken possession of the vehicle on 19.12.2019, who could be termed as the real owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the plaintiff is not liable to the illegal acts committed by the defendant, as well as the claims made against the plaintiff in the MCOP.Nos.85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 120, 11, 122 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge (MACT), Dharmapuri and MCOP.Nos50, 51, 52, 53 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Palacode. The plaintiff has been put to mental stress and agony and the defendant is liable to pay the cost of all the MCOPs, along with the cost of suit as well. The plaintiff also prayed for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-, apart from seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is not the owner of the vehicle and for the relief of mandatory injunction that the defendant has to effect transfer of ownership in his