Whether the owner of the vehicle despite the sale of the vehicle ,but no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and was continued to be the owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30) of the Act and as such was laible to pay compensation if any accident was occured while the Vehicle was in the hands of thrid party ?


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit


Accident claim – appellant sold his vehicle to the respondent  No.2 but ownership not transferred with in 30 days as per sec.50 of M.V. Act -in the meanwhile accident was occured – victim filed MVOP for compensation -Trai  court awarded Rs.12 lakhs holding jont liability on Appellant and Respondent No.2’s driver  -The High Court found that despite the sale of the vehicle on 11.09.2009, no transfer of ownership, in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (‘the Act’ for short) was effected and as such the appellant continued to be the owner in terms of definition as incorporated in Section 2(30) of the Act. Relying on the decision of this Court in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others1  the High Court concluded as under. “Applying the ratio of the above said judgment to the facts of the present case, the award stands modified to

the above extent that the Insurance Company is liable to make the compensation to the claimant and theInsurance Company will have the recovery rights to 1 (2018) 3 SCC 1 Prakash Chand Daga vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. recover the same from the registered owner i.e. respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle. Remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered.”-Apex court held that . The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:- Prakash Chand Daga vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. “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 … … …Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner 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.” The High Court was therefore absolutely right in allowing the appeal. The challenge raised by the appellant must fail. This appeal is dismissed. No costs.