9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ownership of the defendant alone as per the registration certificate, therefore, on the basis of affidavit dated 10.9.1996, the plaintiff cannot claim to be owner of the said truck to the extent of half share. It is also contended that sale and purchase of a motor vehicle cannot be regulated by way of such an affidavit produced by the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma vs. Jagwant Kaur and others, 2005(3) PLR 454. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The sale of motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (for short "the Goods Act") and not by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In Vasantha Viswanathan and others vs. V.K. Elayalwar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 133, Supreme Court has interpreted Section 19 of the Goods Act. It was held that if there is a contract for sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. While considering Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "MV Act 1939"), it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property..." It also considered that the penalty for contravention of Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939 i.e., for not registration of the motor vehicle, is contained in Section 112 and other provisions in Chapter IX of the MV Act, 1939. It was held as under:- "..... The endorsement of the transfer in the records of the registering authority is, therefore, not a condition precedent to the transfer, nor does it deal with the legality or validity of the transfer which must be determined by other provisions of the law. Should any person, in disregard of the provisions of law, fail to intimate the transfer to the authority or may drive the vehicle in a public place without a certificate of registration, he runs the risk of incurring the penalties provided by the Act, but his title to the purchase of the vehicle undoubtedly remains unaffected, nor does the title remain in suspense during the grace period allowed for effecting endorsements of registration". Still further, it noticed that the certificate of registration is an important piece of evidence and the transferee is to take steps to have the particulars of transfer endorsed on the certificate of registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the vehicle as such. They merely provide for regulations of use of motor vehicles in public places. Their non-compliance attracts penalties". A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Balwant Singh vs. Jhannubai and others, 1980 ACJ 126, considered the argument that since the registration certificate was in the name of Ramaratan respondent No.1, therefore, the legal ownership continued to be of that of respondent No.1 alone as in the absence of transfer of registration as contemplated by Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939, the transferee cannot be held to be the owner of the car. The said argument was negated relying upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Vimal Roy's case (supra). A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Hema Ramaswami vs. K.M. Valarence Panjani and others, 1981 ACJ 288 was seized of a case where the vehicle met with an accident after the transfer of ownership but before the same was registered with the Transport Authority. The Court held to the following effect:- " ...... Having regard to the preponderance of judicial opinion, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the transfer of the vehicle will not put an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al owner who was thus liable whether or not he was the registered owner of the vehicle too. It held to the following effect: - "9. The over whelming weight of judicial precedent, however, points to the contrary view, namely, that the change of ownership of a vehicle puts an end to the policy of insurance even if the original policy holder continues to be shown as the registered owner of the vehicle concerned. The rationale behind this being that a policy of insurance is a contract of personal indemnity and the insurer cannot, therefore, be compelled to accept responsibility in respect of a third party, who may be quite unknown to him. Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the Insurance company, cited a string of authorities in support. It would apt to begin with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in M/s Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Private Limited and another vs. Dewalal (1977 A.C.J.150) where the earlier view of that Court in Padma Devi and others' case (supra) was expressly dissented from. It was pointed out in this behalf that in Padma Devi and others case (supra) the court followed the judgment of the Single Bench of the High Court of Delhi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be registered and for which application is required to be made for registration. Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988 is pari materia with section 31 of the MV Act, 1939. A conjoint reading of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988, shows that if the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer, the registering authority may require the transferor or the transferee to pay such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5) in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177. Sub-section (5) contemplates that the State Government may prescribe different amount having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub-section (2). It, thus, transpires that the ownership of a movable property is not dependent upon the entries in the registration certificate. For the delay in seeking mutation of change in the registration certificate, the transferor or the transferee, as the case may be, can be penalized and procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third parties are protected under its section 157 whereby with the transfer of the motor vehicle, the insurance policy is also deemed to be transferred. Under MV Act, 1939, the transfer of insurance policy was required to be accepted by the insurance company in terms of the procedure contemplated under section 103A of the said Act. Such provision also supports the view that transfer of the vehicle is not dependent upon the entries in the registration certificate. The Division Bench has not considered the long line judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court including the larger Bench judgment in Panna Lal's case (supra). The Bench of this Court referred to word 'owner' in section 168 of the Act and concluded that it is the registered owner of the vehicle in terms of Section 50 of the Act who is liable to satisfy the Award. But that definition in section 2 of the MV Act have to be read in the context in which it appears has escaped the notice of the Court. Therefore, the said judgment is per incuriam. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the defendant- appellant has admitted that both the parties have purchased the vehicle by contributing equal am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
