The registration of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser is not a necessary requirement for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle.

S. S. Sodhi, J.

1. On August 22, 1975, Smt. Sheela Devi, a school teacher, was returning home with her three month old daughter, when the tempo PUK-818, she was travelling in, struck against a heap of earth, turned turtle and then caught fire. Smt. Sheela Devi and her daughter died due to the burn injuries suffered by them in this accident.

2. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of Krishan Lal, the driver of the tempo. A sum of Rs.52,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the husband and son of Smt. Sheela Devi, the deceased.

3. Liability for payment of the amount awarded as compensation was fastened not only upon the driver and owner of the tempo, namely, Krishan Lal and Sabu Ram, but also upon Harbans Singh, from whom the tempo had been purchased by Sabu Ram before this accident and the insurance company with which Harbans Singh had insured this tempo when it was owned by him. Both Harbans Singh and the insurance company now challenge their liability.

4. The relevant facts as stand out on the record are that Sabu Ram was admittedly the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident, he having purchased the tempo on June 30, 1974. The accident, as has been mentioned above, took place over a year thereafter, that is, on August 22, 1975. Krishan Lal, the driver of this tempo, is the son of the said Sabu Ram. In his written statement, Sabu Ram admitted his ownership of the tempo and in the affidavit, exhibit R-2, sworn by him, it was specifically mentioned that he had purchased this tempo on June 30, 1974. Sabu Ram also made a statement to this effect when he appeared in the witness box.

5. The point sought to be urged by Mr. G. L. Nagpal, counsel for the claimants, was that as the tempo stood registered in the name of Harbans Singh at the time of the accident, he retained ownership over it and was thus liable. In other words, registration in the name of the purchaser was a necessary ingredient for transfer of title of the vehicle concerned. This is a contention wholly devoid of merit. A similar point was raised in Phul Bus Service V/s. Financial Commissioner [1968] ACJ 57, where it was held that ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred in the same manner and subject to the same limitations and rules as apply to all other movable property and an absolute transferee of a motor vehicle does not cease to be the owner thereof merely because his name has not yet been substituted for the name of the transferor in the registration certificate of the vehicle issued under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was specifically observed that registration under the Motor Vehicles Act was not a necessary ingredient of a completed title of ownership of a motor vehicle.

6. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that Harbans Singh had no connection with the tempo on the date of the accident and consequently no liability could be fastened upon him arising out of any accident that the tempo may have been involved in after its transfer to Sabu Ram.

7. The insurance company too could not have been held liable as the insured was Harbans Singh and not the transferee, Sabu Ram. Admittedly, no policy of insurance had been obtained by Sabu Ram nor had any request ever been made for the transfer of the policy to Sabu Ram. The insurance company in this situation cannot in any manner be held liable for payment of any amount awarded as compensation.

8. In dealing with the liability of the insurance company, the other pertinent aspect which deserves mention is that Krishan Lal, the driver of the tempo, did not hold any driving licence at the time of the accident. Indeed, he was not even eligible for the grant of a licence, being underaged. Sabu Ram, father of Krishan Lal, admitted that Krishan Lal had no licence and was only 16 years of age. There is also on record the judgment of the criminal court, exhibit A-6, whereby Krishan Lal was convicted in respec