IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108) FAO-1834-2024(O&M)

Reserved on : 09.12.2025 Pronounced on: 11.12.2025 Uploaded on: 11.12.2025 Shawinder Pal Singh@ Shivinderpal Singh … Appellant Versus Rajvir Kaur And Others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate Mr. Shivani Singla, Advocate Mr. Suman Rani, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 4.

Mr. Kashitiz Goel, Advocate for respondent No.6.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-respondent no.3 (registered owner of the offending vehicle) assailing the award dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa, whereby compensation of Rs.21,91,200/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and the liability to satisfy the award has been fastened jointly and severally upon the respondent no.5(driver), respondent no.6 and the appellant as the registered owner. The challenge in this appeal is confined only to the aspect of liability of the owner and quantum of compensation. The findings of the learned Tribunal on negligence are not under challenge before this Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The claim petition was instituted by the legal representatives of deceased Sukhcharan Singh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident on 17.10.2020 involving Skoda Fabia car bearing registration No. PB-03R-6633. During the proceedings, it came on record that the said vehicle continued to stand registered in the name of the present appellant. Upon such disclosure, the appellant was impleaded as respondent no.3 before the learned Tribunal on 20.07.2022. The appellant, upon appearance, pleaded that he had already sold the vehicle in the August 2018 to respondent no.6 (Gurjant Singh) and had no control, dominion or possession over the vehicle at the time of accident.

3. The learned Tribunal, after examining the material on record, held that the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle continued in the name of the appellant on the date of accident and no statutory transfer under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been effected. The learned Tribunal observed that the purchaser (respondent no.6), though admitting purchase in his written statement, did not step into the witness box to prove the alleged purchase or to prove the affidavit relied upon by the appellant. It was further held that the documents relied upon by the appellant, namely the affidavit dated 09.08.2018 purportedly of the purchaser (respondent no.6) and the intimation letter dated 12.10.2018 addressed to the Licensing Authority, were insufficient to establish transfer of ownership in the eyes of law. Placing reliance on the Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, 2018 (2) RCR(Civil) 74 settled principle that the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered on the date of accident is to be treated as the owner for the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Act, Thus, the learned Tribunal held the appellant, respondent no. 5 (driver) and respondent no.6 (actual owner) liable to satisfy the award.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant despite ample material showing that the vehicle had been sold nearly two years prior to the accident. It is urged that the appellant had executed the transfer documents in favour of respondent no.6, had handed over possession, and had even intimated the Licensing Authority regarding the transfer. It is argued that the appellant had completely divested himself of ownership, possession and control, and once the admitted purchaser- actual owner (respondent no.6) failed to seek transfer of the vehicle in the statutory record, the appellant cannot be saddled with liability. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal mechanically relied on the RC entry without considering the rea