PHANIDRA FINANCE CORPORATION Vs. GALI BRAHMANANDHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the registered owner of a vehicle is liable to pay compensation or a transferee from the registered owner, which is not recorded with the registration authorities is liable to pay compensation is the short question that falls consideration in this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants Sri K.V.N.Jayasimha submits that unless the vehicle is transferred in the name of the purchaser, the registered owner would be continued to be liable. He has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Pushpa alias Leela(supra) and on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in INDIA LEASE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v. SAVITA AND OTHERS . The facts are not in dispute. In that case, the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured had taken a stand that transfer of the car by the transferor to transferee has not informed to it about the transfer as required under Section 103(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the accident having been taken place subsequent to the transfer, the insurance company is not liable. The Apex Court held that on the transfer of the vehicle intimation was given, but though not in the prescribed form. In the present case, the vehicle was not insured. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Godavari Finance Company. In that case one Ch.Praveen Kumar, 4th respondent was the owner of the vehicle. He purchased the vehicle having been financed by the appellant and subsequently he discharged the loan in the year 1995. The vehicle was in possession and control of Ch.Praveen Kumar - the fourth respondent. It met with an accident on 29.05.1995. The appellant was the financer. Its name as a financer was incorporated in the registration book of the vehicle. However, the extract of the registration book reveals that the vehicle was insured and registered in the name of Ch.Praveen Kumar, only with effect from the vehicle was held under a hire purchase agreement dated 06.02.1995 and it was cancelled on 10.11.1995. Accident occurred on 29.05.1995. In that case, the name of the fourth respondent Ch.Praveen Kumar was registered in the registration book. Here in this case, the name of the purchaser is not registered in the registration book. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. The factum of hire purchase agreement was also entered in the registration book. Therefore, the facts of that case are entirely different and not applied to the present case. Reliance is placed on decision of the single judge of this Court in Uppala Muralidhar Rao (2nd supra). In the said decision it was held that ownership of the vehicle passes from the transferor to the transferee by executing available document and when the accident occurred after transfer of the vehicle, the transferor is not liable. Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Pushpa Alias Leela(4th Supra). In that case, policy was issued on 25.02.1992, but it was expired on 24.03.1993. Policy was taken by one Jitender Gupta. Subsequently he sold the vehicle to Salig Ram. But despite the sale of the vehicle, the change of the ownership of the vehicle was not entered in the certificate of registration. The Apex Court referring the definition of owner, observed at Para 11 as follows: