ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by owner aggrieved by an award dated 10-1-05 passed by IIIrd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case No. 28/04.
2. On account of death of Prabhunath Singh in an accident dated 21-2-94, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,66,000 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
3. In this appeal filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, registered owner of the vehicle, the only submission raised by the appellant to assail the liability is that the vehicle was transferred to respondent No. 5 Dharmraj Singh as per sale letter (Exh. D-2), dated 4-12-93 whereas accident took place on 21-2-94, scooter was seized as per seizure memo (Exh. P-7) on 29-2-94 along with original sale letter (D-2). A consideration of Rs. 11,500 was paid, thereafter it was the duly of transferee to apply for getting his name registered, consequently, Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, after having sold the vehicle could not have been held liable to make payment of compensation jointly and severally along with respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4. The stand of respondent No. 5 Dharmraj Singh in reply was that he was not the owner of the vehicle, he was not driving it, he was unnecessarily implicated, Prabhunath Singh was not doing any kind of work, excessive compensation was claimed. Since he was not driving neither he was the owner of vehicle as such he was not liable.
5. Driver of the vehicle Shri Satyendra Singh in his reply contended that he was not the owner, he was not involved in the accident, excessive compensation was claimed, deceased was not an employed person, thus, claim petition be dismissed.
6. The Tribunal has found that scooter was driven by Satyendra Singh at the time of accident in rash and negligent manner, owing to the injuries sustained in the accident Prabhunath Singh died, aforesaid compensation has been awarded, consequently registered owner has come up in this appeal assailing his liability to make payment of compensation. Quantum of compensation has not been challenged at Bar as that is quite reasonable.
7. Shri Sachin Verma, learned Counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that as the vehicle was transferred by the registered owner as per sale letter (D-2) and original sale letter was recovered as per seizure memo (P-7) on 29-2-94, accident took place after transfer of the vehicle as such it was the duty of the transferee as per Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to get the vehicle transferred within 30 days of sale. Entire consideration was paid, possession was with Dharmraj Singh as such appellant ought to have been exonerated. He has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Panna Lal v. Shri Chand Mal and Ors. 1980 ACJ 233 and a decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Satish Sanghi v. Mihir Kumar Joshi and Ors. . He has also relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and Ors. etc. , whereas Shri Y.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that vis-a-vis to third parties, registered owner continues to be liable even after transfer of the vehicle. He has also submitted that vehicle was in fact not transferred, it was only in temporary possession of Dharmraj Singh for the purpose of driving. No consideration was paid as such registered owner remained liable to make payment of compensation. He has placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3939 and in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. JagwantKaur and Ors. AIR 2006 (NOC) 327 (P and H), in which the aforesaid decision of Apex Court has been followed.
8. Firstly, we have to examine the question whether the vehicle was in fact sold to Dharmraj Singh. When we consider the seizure memo coupled with other evidence on record, it leaves no iota of doubt that vehicle was sold and its original sale receipt was seized at the time of seizure, it was in possession of Dharmraj Singh. Photo copy of the same (Exh. D-2) has been placed on record by registered owner coupled with seizure memo (Exh. P- 7). There is nothing to doubt the correctness of Exh. D-2, copy of sale letter. We find from the statement of Durgavati that vehicle was driven by Satyendra Singh, brother of Shri Dharmraj Singh. Jamuna has also stated that Satyendra Singh, brother of Dharmraj Singh was driving the vehicle. Ashok Kumar Mishra has stated that he has sold the vehicle to Dharmraj Singh on 4-12-93, copy of sale letter (Exh. D-2) was exhibited, thereafter he was not liable. Scooter was seized from Dharmraj Singh after the accident in the month of February, 94. Dharmraj Singh (NAW 2) has stated that Ashok Kumar Mishra had handed over certain papers of the scooter to him and asked him to handover the documents to police in case they were required. He did not read the documents which were handed over by Ashok Kumar Mishra and handed over the documents to police. Thus, from the statement of Dharmraj Singh, it is clear that the original sale letter was also seized by police as mentioned in seizure memo. Sudarshan (NAW 4) has also stated that Exh. D-2, sale letter was executed, consideration of Rs. 11,500 was paid. Similar is the statement of Viresh Kumar Pandey (NAW 5). He has also supported the aforesaid statement of NAW 4, thus, it is clear that Exh. D-2 was executed between the parties on 4-12-93 for a consideration of Rs. 11,500 and consideration was also passed over. However, vehicle stood in the name of Ashok Kumar Mishra, transferee had failed to get it transferred to his name as per Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. Question arose for consideration is whether in the absence of transfer of the vehicle in the name of purchaser vis-a-vis to third party whether registered owner can be held liable. The Apex Court considered precisely the said question in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (supra), and has held thus:
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so.
Thus, Apex Court has laid down that registered owner continues to remain liable to third parties even if he has sold the vehicle, in turn he can recover the compensation from the person to whom he has sold the vehicle. No doubt about it that Apex Court in Panna Lal v. Shri Chand Mal and Ors. (supra), has considered the question that when registration papers, sale memo have been handed over to the transferee and registration continues to remain in the owners name, transferee failed to move the registration authority for transfer, whether the sale was ineffective and transferee can claim refund of the purchase money or damages from the owner. Their Lordships in the context of Section 31 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 observed that under the provisions of the said Section the transfer of ownership is permitted but the statute cast 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 vehicle registered in his name. If the transferee did not choose to move the registering authority, he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled for refund of the purchase money or claim damages. Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is pari materia to Section31 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Registration of the vehicle in the name of transferee may not be condition precedent for completing the sale, however, in the aforesaid decision Apex Court has not considered the question of liability of registered owner vis-a-vis to third party, that has been considered in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (supra) and that has been followed in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur and Ors. (supra). The question involved in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and Ors. etc. (supra), was about hire purchase agreement, it was not a case of liability of registered owner vis-a-vis to third party and we find that direct decision on the issue involved in the instant case is that of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (supra). Thus, we follow it. However, as held by Apex Court in the aforesaid decision of Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and Ors. (supra), in case amount is recovered from registered owner as he has sold the vehicle, he can recover it from Dharmraj Singh and the driver of the vehicle. However, vis-a-vis to third party liability is joint and several.
10. With the aforesaid modification in the award, appeal is disposed of. We leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal.