Under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is the 'owner' and is solely liable for compensation, regardless of whether the vehicle was in the possession of another person due to an unregistered transfer.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Baljit Singh against the award dated 19.09.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal’) whereby the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2, fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4/registered owner of offending vehicle, on account of death of Shanti Devi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 09.01.2000.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to the liability of compensation fastened by the learned Tribunal upon the present appellant-Baljit Singh along with respondent No.3 and 4 jointly and severally, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Baljit Singh contends that the appellant has wrongly been made liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2, since in his written statement as well as while arguing before the learned Tribunal, he had continuously been pleading that he was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-47-5001 on the date of accident. Despite this fact, the learned Tribunal while ignoring the submission made by the appellant, made him liable to pay the compensation. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the liability to pay compensation be affixed upon respondent Nos.3 and 4/registered owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4/registered owner of the offending vehicle contends that on the date of accident respondent No.1-Baljit Singh was in the possession of the offending vehicle, therefore, he is solely liable to pay compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2. He furthermore contends that he has filed separate appeal bearing No. FAO-5781-2009 titled as “Umed Singh and another Vs. Ravinder Kumar and others” challenging the liability to pay compensation as affixed upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 as well as appellant/Baljit Singh jointly and severely. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants contends that learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of liability to pay compensation. He furthermore contends that compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on the lower side. And that he has preferred separate appeal bearing no. FAO-754-2010 titled as “Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. Umed Singh and others” seeking enhancement. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the whole record of this case.

7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which reads as under:-

“30. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Vidya Rani & Ors. V/s Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. 2007 (1) LJR 513 was pleased to grand multiplier of '16' wherein deceased was 48 years of age. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.P. Mohammed V/s K. Rajappan & Ors.2003 ACJ 1595 has been pleased to hold that the pension in whose name registration continues, will remain liable to a th