The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of a vehicle, transfer of ownership, and liability for accidents are determined based on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sale of Goods Act, and Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the significance of compliance with registration requirements and the impact on ownership.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

This judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned five appeals, filed by the appellant, challenging the impugned awards dated 26.7.2010/12.1.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal and Sirsa respectively (in short 'the Tribunal'), arising out of the same accident. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that one Seema Devi acquired the vehicle through hire purchase basis, on account of non-payment, the possession of the vehicle was taken and the same was further sold in auction, in favour of Amar Singh. The said Amar Singh further sold the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 6, Rishal Singh. At the time of accident, the vehicle was under control and possession of said Rishal Singh. His son was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Earlier the vehicle was financed by the appellant. Rishal Singh has admitted that the vehicle was being driven under his instructions and control. In his reply, he has admitted that he had purchased the vehicle from Amar Singh.

2. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the driver and owner.

3. Section 2(30), of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;

4. In the written statement before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have admitted that they had purchased the vehicle from one Amar Singh S/o. Rajinder Singh on 15.3.2008. At the time of occurrence, the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 5, son of the subsequent purchaser i.e. respondent No. 6 Rishal Singh.

5. This Court in Munni Ram Vs. Fakir Chand and Another, AIR 2010 P&H 50 held as under:-

"5. The sale of motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (for short "the Goods Act") and not by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In Vasantha Viswanthan and Others Vs. V.K. Elayalwar and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3367, Supreme Court has interpreted Section 19 of the Goods Act. It was held that if there is a contract for sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. While considering Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "MV Act 1939"), it was held that it prescribes the procedure for entering the factum of transfer in the registration certificate which is an act posterior to the transfer but the transfer of the vehicle would be governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the Goods Act. Similar is the judgment in Panna Lal Vs. Shri Chand Mal and Others, AIR 1980 SC 871, when after considering section 31 of the MV Act, 1939, it was held that the statute casts an obligation on the transferee to report to the registering authority concerned regarding the transfer of the vehicle along with a certificate of registration and then get the registration transferred in his name but if the purchaser has not chosen to move the registering authority, he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled for refund of the purchase money or claim damages. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have applied to the registering authority under section 31 of the MV Act, 1939 and got the registration transferred in his name.

6. Apart from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, the question as to whether the registered owner alone can be deemed to be owner of the vehicle has come up for consideration in many judgments under the MV Act, 1939 and under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act" as well. The provisions of the two statutes are substantially same except that the definition of owner as it appears in Sectio