The central legal principle established in the judgment is that ownership of a vehicle is only transferred upon entry in the registration book and the submission of a purchase application, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

AMARJEET CHAUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, which had granted a sum of Rs. 48,000/- as compensation to the claimants against respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. The owner of the truck has filed this appeal alleging that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in finding their liability as they were not owner at the time of the accept.

2. The back-ground which led to the filing of the appeal is that Bawa Amarjeet Singh and his wife Shrimati Harbans Kaur filed claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation amounting to Rs. six lacs on account of deaths of their two unmarried educated children, namely Gurpreet Singh and Harminder Kaur, who were Engineer and Doctor, respectively, from Tejinder Singh Driver of Truck No. PBW-155 and from Gurdev Singh or Karamjit Singh whosoever is proved to be the owner of the said truck The claim application was filed against the Insurance Company but the vehicle was not insured. As such, no liability could be determined against the Insurance Company.

3. In this case, the deaths of Harminder Kaur and Gurpreet Singh are not in dispute. The sole question which cropped up for consideration before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was with regard to fixing of liability as the respondents have denied the ownership of the truck. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings had framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the deaths of Harminder Kaur and Gurpreet Singh have been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Tejinder Singh? OPP.

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.

3. Relief

4. All the issues were decided against the respondents.

5. Gurdev Singh respondent had taken the stand that he had sold the truck to Karamjit Singh for Rs. 31,000/- on 16-1-1990, whereas according to Karamjit Singh the said truck was not purchased by him. The other plea is that Karamjit Singh had taken the said truck on sapurdari from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class as per application Exhibit A-l in which he had described himself as owner of the truck.

6. I have examined the case file and find no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to the effect that the ownership of the truck did not vest with Karamjit Singh at the time of the accident Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the ownership of vehicle is only transferred when there is entry in the registration book and the transferee had made an application that he bad purchased the truck. There is no documentary evidence on the record to the effect that the truck was transferred in the name of Karamji Singh. Gurdev Singh has admitted that he did not move application to the District Transport Officer to transfer the truck in the name of Karamjit Singh. Statement of Amarjit Singh (RW-5) Alhmad in the Court of Mrs. Sudarshan Modi reveals that Karamjit Singh had moved an application for taking the truck on sapurdari and that too as general attorney of Gurdev Singh. Karamjit Singh in the surety bond has described himself as Mukhtiar-am of Gurdev Singh. In view of all this, it is proved that the ownership of the truck had vested with Gurdev Singh. As such I do not find any informity in the award to that extent.

7. In this case a sum of Rs. 48,000/- had been granted as compensation to the claimants on account of the deaths of two educated un-married children. Had the claimants filed appeal or cross-objections they would have been held entitled to higher compensation but they did not choose to do so. The appellant instead of showing grace in making payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has chosen to file the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 1000/-.