The registered owner of a vehicle is liable for compensation in case of an accident even after the vehicle has been sold if he has a subsisting interest in the vehicle.

M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an award granting compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the claimants against the driver and transferee of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck No. PNP 6544.

2. The sole question raised in this appeal was with respect to the liability of the registered owner, namely, Hans Raj, and of the insurance company, i.e., whether the registered owner is liable to reimburse the claimants and resultantly the insurance companys liability to indemnify the insured, i.e., the registered owner.

3. The learned single judge came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was sold by Hans Raj, the registered owner, to one Mool Chand. Hans Raj, the transferor, was the insurer of the vehicle. The transferor did not intimate the insurance company with respect to the sale of the vehicle. The insurance company did not transfer the policy to the transferee. Thus, in terms of the contract of indemnity, i.e., the insurance policy, the insurance company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the finding of the learned single judge on the facts. It was contended that in fact, Shri Hans Raj, insured, still had a subsisting interest in the vehicle, i.e., on the date of accident. Mere transfer of possession of the vehicle by itself would not absolve the transferor of his liability as well as that of the insurance company. Even otherwise, it is proved on record that the alleged transfer was witnessed or proved in view of the affidavit showing the transfer. The affidavit had been tampered with, with respect to the date of sale in order to avoid ones liability especially when it is admitted in evidence that the sale was made by the owner of the truck to one of his drivers for a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000 and the truck is alleged to have been handed over to him just on receiving a payment of Rs. 2,000 as earnest money,

5. In view of the provisions of Section 31 read with Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it emerges that though the registration certificate of a motor vehicle may not be a document of title yet it prima facie establishes the real ownership of the vehicle. A presumption of ownership is that the person who is registered as owner in the registration certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act is the owner unless the same is rebutted by the owner, i.e., transferor or the transferee, by leading cogent evidence or can be shown by circumstantial evidence showing the ownership vesting in someone else than the registered owner mentioned in the certificate of registration. We find support in our observation from Phut Bus Service v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab [1968] ACJ 57 (P& H).

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the records. There is no gainsaying that men may lie but circumstances do not. Secondly, an admission made by a person against himself is the best evidence. The salient facts which emerge from a reading of the statement of Hiramoni (RW-6) who is the son of the transferor, Hans Raj, and appeared as his attorney, are that in the end of April, 1977, the truck was delivered to Shri Mool Chand by his father, Hans Raj, when a sum of Rs. 2,000 was given to him as earnest money. One Prem Chand stood as surety for payment of the remaining sale price. Though he stated that Mool Chand paid the remaining amount on May 6, 1977, yet it is an oral statement of Hans Raj in his own favour which has to be weighed and assessed by balancing the counter-statement made by Mool Chand, transferee of the vehicle, that he took the delivery of the truck after it had been registered in his name in January, 1978, which finds corroboration from the fact that an affidavit with respect to the stile of the truck and having no objection to the transfer of the same being executed and sworn in terms of the requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder was given