Sanjay Singh Thakur vs Sultan Ahmad.

R.S. Garg, J.

This order shall also dispose of M.A. No. 3/90 (Sanjay Singh Thakur v. Smt Asinbai & 3 Ors.)

On 24.5.87, the jeep No. M.P. K. 2004 driven by respondent no. 2, Jitendra Pandey met with an aceident near village Kahamaria and 2 persons namely Subhan Ansari and Moujiram @ Maniram died. 2 separate claim cases were filed by their legal representatives which were registered as Claim Case No. 28/87 in the matter of death of Subhan Ansari and Claim Case No. 29/87 in the matter of death of Moujiram. In both the cases the present appellant Sanjay Singh Thakur as the registered owner of the vehicle was made a party and respondent no. 3 Nagendra Pandey was also made a party on the allegation that the vehicle was sold to him by the present appellant. In both the cases application u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was tiled. Sanjay Singh the present appellant submitted that he had sold the vehicle on 18.5.87 to respondent no. 3 and the possession of the vehicle was immediately given to respondent no. 3. It was also contended that the intimation of the transfer was also given by him on the same day. According to him he had discharged all the legal obligations and according to him as the vehicle was sold on 18.5.87 and the possession was also delivered, the sale was complete and has he was not answerable to the claim put forth by the claimants. It was also submitted by him that the vehicle, was registered in favour of respondent no. 3 on 1.6.87. Therefore, even on the date of the order he was not the registered owner, therefore, no order u/s 92-A could be passed against him, the learned trial court after hearing the parties held that on 24.5.87 as the appellant was the registered owner, he should be held liable for deposit of Rs. 15000/- under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 irrespective of the fact that he had already sold vehicle. Being aggrieved by the orders passed in the said cases, the appellant has preferred these 2 appeals registered as M.A. No. 2/90 and M.A. No. 3/90.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below was wrong in holding that even if the sale was complete and the appellant had given the information to the registering authority within 14 days, then too he could be held liable because on the date of the accident he was the registered owner. It was submitted that in any case when the dispute regarding the ownership of the registration of the name of the owner with the R. T. O. is concerned, is yet to be decided then the appellant alone could not be held liable to suffer the liability of the interim award. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the learned trial court has merely passed an interim award with the direction that if any other non-claimant is found liable then the present appellant can recover the money from him. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. The counsel for the claimants submitted that the order passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference.

In Pannalal v. Chandmal (1), the Supreme Court held that where a vehicle was transferred by transferring memo of sale and registration certificate, the transferee could not claim refund of the sale price and damages on the ground that the transferor failed to take steps to have transferee''s name entered in the registration certificate. The Supreme Court furhter held that S. 31 casts 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 registration transferred in his name. It is therefore, the duty of the transferee to apply to registering authority u/s 31 and get the registration transferred in his name.

The division bench of this court in the matter of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai (2), has held that sale of the motor vehicle is not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, but in fact are governed by the provisions of the sale of Goods Act. According to the division bench the transfer is complete upon payment of consideration and the delivery of the vehicle, irrespective of whether it has been registered or not. In the matter of Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) P. Ltd. v. Dewalal (3), Rajsthan High Court has held to the same effect that the sale of the motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the sale of Goods Act and an endorsoment of transfer of vehicle in the registration records is not a condition precedent for effecting transfer.

Relying upon Pannalal''s (supra), the full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Madineni V. Yaseen Fatima (4), has held that even if the transferor or transferee failed to report the fact of transfer of vehicle to the registering authority, then too the sale is complete. In absence of any agreement to the contrary, payment of price and delivery of vehicle makes the sale complete.

From the Plethora of authorities it is clear that the moment the price is paid and possession of motor vehicle is delivered to the purchaser the sale is complete. It is immaterial that the name of the purchaser is recorded in the registration ceritficate or not.

In the instant case the appellant has come with the case that the vehicle was already sold by him on 18.5.87 and the registration in favour of respondent no. 3 was affected on 1.6.87. It is undisputed that the accident took place on 24.5.87. Under these circumstances it would be rather pre-mature to decide that who would be ultimately responsible to pay the claim amount. The learned trial court was not absolutely justified in holding that irrespective of the plea of the appellant that he had sold the vehicle to the respondent no. 3, being a registered owner, he should deposit the amount. The claimants case was that the appellant was the registered owner while the respondent No. 3 was the real owner. The issue is yet to be decided by the Court below. Under these circumstances in my opinion when there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle, then the Court below was not justified in holding that the appellant alone should deposit the amount under the interim award. The appellant claims that he had sold the vehicle. The respondent no. 3 claims that the vehicle was recorded in the name of the appellant. Then the Court below should have at this juncture directed that the registered owner and the transferee both would be anwerable to meet the interim award. To this extent the order of the learned trial Court deserves to be modified.

The appeal is thus partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant and respondent no. 3 both would be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 15000/- awarded under order dated 22.11.89.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. But, however, there shall be no order as to costs.