3. The husband and children of the deceased Dr. Neera Garg ins(cid:24)tuted a claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa(cid:24)on from the driver, the registered owner of the vehicle and respondent No.4 – Rahul Nagpal.

4. The appellant contested the claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on primarily on the ground that he had already sold the vehicle to respondent No.4 – Rahul Nagpal prior to the accident through an affidavit dated 28.04.2014 and therefore the liability to pay compensa(cid:24)on could not be fastened upon him. Respondent No.4 did not contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte.

5. A-er apprecia(cid:24)ng the evidence adduced by the par(cid:24)es, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensa(cid:24)on at ₹42,41,304/- along with interest and held respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle, jointly and severally liable to sa(cid:24)sfy the award.

6. Assailing the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had already transferred the vehicle in favour of respondent No.4 by virtue of an affidavit dated 28.04.2014 and therefore the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon him.

7. On a specific query put by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that as on the date of the accident the vehicle con(cid:24)nued to stand registered in the name of the appellant in the records of the registering authority. A perusal of the award further reveals that the alleged affidavit dated 28.04.2014, on which reliance is sought to be placed, was not even produced before the Tribunal. Moreover, the appellant himself did not step into the witness box to prove the alleged transfer of the vehicle.

8. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that such an affidavit had been produced on record, the same by itself would not absolve the appellant of his statutory liability so long as the vehicle con(cid:24)nued to remain registered in his name in the records of the registering authority.

9. The issue regarding the liability of a registered owner in such circumstances is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and ors., AIR 2018 SC 983, while interpre(cid:24)ng the defini(cid:24)on of “owner” under Sec(cid:24)on 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has categorically held that for the purposes of the Act, the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered in the records of the registering authority shall be treated as the owner and shall remain liable to compensate the vic(cid:24)ms of a motor accident. The Apex Court further observed that where a registered owner claims to have transferred the vehicle but the transfer is not reflected in the records of the registering authority, such person cannot escape liability towards third-party claimants.

10. The relevant observa(cid:24)ons of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:

“12 The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the defini(cid:24)on of the expression ‘owner’ in Sec(cid:24)on 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypotheca(cid:24)on, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situa(cid:24)on such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but con(cid:24)nues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the defini(cid:24)on of the expression ‘owner’ in Sec(cid:24)on 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Sec(cid:24)on 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions