The sale of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and is complete upon payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle, irrespective of whether it has been registered or not.

( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of M. A. No. 3/90 (Sanjay Singh Thakur v. Smt. Asinbai and 3 others ).

( 2 ) ON 24-5-87, the jeep No. M. P. K. 2004 driven by respondent No. 2, Jitendra Pandey met with an accident near village Khamaria and 2 persons namely Subhan Ansari and Moujiram alias Maniram died. 2 separate claim cases were filed by their legal representatives which were registered as Claim Case No. 28/87 in the matter of death of Subhan Ansari and Claim Case No. 29/87 in the matter of death of Moujiram. In both the cases the present appellant Sanjay Singh Thakur as the registered owner of the vehicle was made a party and respondent No. 3 Nagendra Pandey was also made a party on the allegation that the vehicle was sold to him by the present appellant. In both the cases application u/s. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. Sanjay Singh the present appellant submitted that he had sold the vehicle on 18-5-87 to respondent No. 3 and the possession of the vehicle was immediately given to respondent No. 3. It was also contended that the intimation of the transfer was also given by him on the same day. According to him he had discharged all the legal obligations and according to him as the vehicle was sold on 18-5-87 and the possession was also delivered, the sale was complete and he was not answerable to the claim put forth by the claimants. It was also submitted by him that the vehicle was registered in favour of respondent No. 3 on 1-6-87. Therefore, even on the date of the order he was not the registered owner, therefore, no order u/s. 92-A could be passed against him. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties held that on 24-5-87 as the appellant was the registered owner, he should be held liable for deposit of Rupees 15,000/- under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 irrespective of the fact that he had already sold the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the orders passed in the said cases, the appellant has preferred these 2 appeals registered as M. A. No. 2/90 and M. A. No. 3/90.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below was wrong in holding that even if the sale was complete and the appellant had given the information to the registering authority within 14 days, then too he could be held liable because on the date of the accident he was the registered owner. It was submitted that in any case when the dispute regarding the ownership of the registration of the name of the owner with the R. T. O. is concerned, is yet to be decided then the appellant alone could not be held liable to suffer the liability of the interim award. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the learned trial Court has merely passed an interim award with a direction that if any other non-claimant is found liable then the present appellant can recover the money from him. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. The counsel for the claimants submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below does not call for any interference.

( 4 ) IN Pannalal v. Chandmal, AIR 1980 SC 871, the Supreme Court held that where a vehicle was transferred by transferring memo of sale and registration certificate, the transferee could not claim refund of the sale price and damages on the ground that the transferor failed to take steps to have transferee's name entered in the registration certificate. The Supreme Court further held that S. 31 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. It is, therefore, the duty of the transferee to apply to registering authority u/ S. 31 and get the registration transferred in his name.

( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126, has held that sale of the motor vehicle is not governed by