D.Y. Chandrachud JUDGMENT
U.U. Lalit, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 7010/2011.
2. The Appellant, original owner of a Santro Car sold said vehicle to Ms. Saveta Sharma, first Respondent on 11.09.2009. According to the Appellant, after receiving due consideration, the possession was transferred to said first Respondent. An accident occurred on 09.10.2009 in which one Rakesh Kumar, second Respondent, received injuries. In a claim lodged by second Respondent, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 12.47 lakhs and directed as under:
32. In view of my findings on the various issues above, the claim petition is allowed with costs and claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,47,739/- (Rs. Twelve lacs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Nine only), Rs. 11,58,489/- compensation for medical expenses etc. + Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings + Rs. 18,000/- as compensation for loss of income + Rs. 11,250/- as compensation for temporary disability from Respondent No. 2 and 3 alone. Keeping in view prevalent interest rates, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the above awarded amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till final realisation. The liability of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to pay the compensation shall be joint as well as several. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to records.
3. Since the liability was fastened on the driver and first Respondent, the aforesaid decision was challenged by them in the High Court by filing FAO No. 7010/2011. 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 v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. MANU/SC/0077/2018 : (2018) 3 SCC 1 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 the Insurance Company will have the recovery rights to 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.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the accident had occurred within thirty days of the transfer when the statutory period as prescribed Under Section 50(1)(b) of the Act had not expired and as such the liability could not be fastened on the present Appellant. Though served, the transferee, namely, first Respondent has chosen not to appear in the matter. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Insurance Company.
5. It is true that in terms of Section