Accident--Registered owner--Liability of the registered owner of the vehicle continues till the registration continues in his name even if the vehicle stood sold/transferred.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This appeal is directed by Rulda Singh, Amar Singh and Surjit Singh against the award dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the present appellants were held liable for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,02,200 jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The facts are these: On 11.1.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., Netar Singh and Chamkaur Singh were proceeding from Amloh towards village Warraichan on a scooter bearing registration No. PB 48-3002 driven by Netar Singh. Chamkaur Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. When they neared village Noorpura near Amloh, meanwhile a tractor bearing registration No. PBD 1503 of which one light was on being driven by Rulda Singh came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Netar Singh slowed down the speed and stopped the scooter on his own side on seeing the tractor coming on the wrong side. The tractor struck against the scooter. As a result of its impact, the driver as well as the pillion rider of the scooter sustained injuries. The injured persons were removed to the hospital. Netar Singh succumbed to the injuries. On these allegations, the claim petition was filed. All the five respondents resisted the claim petitions by traversing the facts embodied therein. Ujaggar Singh as well as Amarjit Singh, respondents put forth that they had sold the tractor in question to respondents Amar Singh and Surjit Singh on 19.9.2002. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

"(1) Whether Netar Singh died in the accident which took place on 11.1.2003 at 6.30 p.m. at village Noorpura near Amloh due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Rulda Singh while driving tractor No. PBD 1503? OPA

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA

(3) Relief."

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the award as noticed at the outset. As is borne out from the record, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein this appeal were being represented by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were being represented by Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate. None has come forward to argue on behalf of these respondents.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection.

5. Mr. Damanjeet Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned award has observed as under:

"Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has argued that they had sold the vehicle to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the accident. Exh. R1 is the affidavit executed by Ujaggar Singh and Amarjit Singh to the effect that they had sold the tractor No. PBD 1503 in favour of Amar Singh and Surjit Singh. Exh. R2 is the copy of the application moved by Amar Singh and Surjit Singh for getting the tractor released on super- dari being owners. They had also executed the superdari bond in this regard, Exh. R3 and Exh. R4. Thus, from these documents it is evident that at the time of the accident respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were owners of the tractor in question. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. This issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3."

6. Stressing his every nerve, he agitated at the Bar that the above findings are in teeth with the settled law that unless the vehicle is not transferred by the competent authorities in the name of the proposed vendee, the previous owner continues to be the registered owner in view of the observations made in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur, 2007 ACJ 1249 (P&H); Niranjan Singh v. Zeena, 2008 ACJ 973 (P&H) and S.S. Sodhi v. Chander Vikas, 2008 AC