What if, the vehicle which met with an accident was sold of by its registered owner before the date of accident and name of the transferee owner (purchaser) is not entered into the R.C. Book:

 

What if, the vehicle which met with an accident was sold of by its registered owner before the date of accident and name of the transferee owner (purchaser) is not entered into the R.C. Book:

 Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High

Court, in the cases reported in 2011 ACJ 577 & 1997 ACJ 260,

respectively, it has been held that when registered owner denies

his liability to pay amount of compensation on the ground that

he had sold the vehicle in question and received the

consideration thereof and handed over the possession of the

vehicle along with R.C. Book and relevant transfer Forms for

getting the vehicle transferred in the name of transferee much

prior to the accident, then in that circumstances transferee

owner cannot be allowed to evade his liability to pay amount of

compensation on the ground that he is not registered owner.

 But Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela

v/s. Shakuntala, reported in 2011 ACJ 705(SC) = AIR 2011 SC

682 in the above referred judgment Hon'ble Apex Court, in

paragraphs Nos.12 to 16 has held as under:“

12. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of a

vehicle after its sale to another person was considered by this

Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 :

(AIR 2001 SC 3939). In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision,

the Court observed and held as follows:

"9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that the

High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on record.

He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed that the

Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date of the

accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name

had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not mean

that the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred.

Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy

Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been

made party Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed out

that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy

Thomas but had then applied for and was permitted to

withdraw the appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy

Thomas had been duly served and a public notice had also

been issued. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen

not to appear in these Appeals. He submitted that the liability,

if any, was of Mr. Roy Thomas.

 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. the 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."

(Emphasis added)

 Again, in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and Ors.,

(2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined the same issue

under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case. In

paragraph 4 of the decision, this Court observed and held as

follows:

"4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The Insurance

Company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question

before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the

vehicle has been transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter to

Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the

third person who was injured. This question has been

answered by this Court in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M.

(reported in 2001 (8) SCC 748) wherein it is held that even

though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the

vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose

name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a

third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed

therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not

mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a

third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records,

he remains liable to a third person."

(Emphasis added)

The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions

of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the

ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of

the case arising under the 1988 Act.On the basis of these

decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta,

whose name continued in the records of the registering

authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for

payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an

insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his

name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the

insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted

that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was

Jitender Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control

over it and the possession and control of the truck were in the

hands of the transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can, therefore,

be fastened on Jitender Gupta, the transferor of the truck. In

support of this submission he relied upon a decision of this

Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and

Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (AIR 2008 SC 735). The facts of the

case in Deepa Devi are entirely different. In that case the

vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise

of the powers conferred upon him under the Representation of

the People Act, 1951. In that circumstance, this Court

observed that the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide

by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy

Commissioner. While the vehicle remained under requisition,

the owner did not exercise any control over it: the driver

might still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he

had to drive the vehicle according to the direction of the officer

of the State, in whose charge the vehicle was given. Save and

except the legal ownership, the registered owner of the vehicle

had lost all control over the vehicle. The decision in Deepa

Devi was rendered on the special facts of that case and it has

no application to the facts of the case in hand.

16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the

compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent

No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to

make full payment of the compensation amount as determined

by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants within two months

from the date of this judgment”.

 From the above referred ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court, it

becomes clear that, as on the date of accident, transferor owner

was the registered owner of offending vehicle, he must be

deemed to continue as owner of the offending vehicle for the

purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, even though under the Civil

Law, he ceased to be its owner after its sale and Transferor

Owner and Transferee Owner (both) are equally liable to pay

the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant.

 Relying on the above referred ratio, Hon'ble Full Bench of

Supreme Court of India, in the case of Naveen Kumar v/s. Vijay

Kumar, Civil Appeal No.1427 of 2018, arising from SLP(C)

No.18943 0f 2016, 2018 SCALE 263 (FBSC) has held that

registered owner of the vehicle shall be treated as owner of the

purpose of M V Act. If the minor is the owner of the vehicle,

his/her guardian shall be treated owner. It has been further held

that when vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase,

lease or hypothetication, the person in possession of the vehicle

under an agreement shall be treated as an owner.

Hon’ble Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the person

in whose name the vehicle is registered is the owner of the

vehicle for the purpose of the MV Act. 2018

SCALE 263 (FBSC).