Kerala HC: [S.50 MV Act] Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Liable To Compensate For Accident, Can Recover Amount From Transferee

Section 50 of the Act deals with the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is an admitted fact that the ownership was not transferred and in the registration certificate, the appellant's name is shown as the owner of the vehicle. The transfer of ownership did not come into effect, though, it is alleged that the vehicle was transferred to the additional fifth respondent and thereafter to a third person. {Para 11}

12. The Parliament has consciously introduced the definition

of the expression ‘owner’ under Section 2(30), making a departure

from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The

principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the

victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs

of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty.

In Naveen Kumar (supra), it was held that for the purpose of the

Motor Vehicles Act, the person whose name is reflected in the

records of the registering authority is the owner and he is liable to compensate. However, the tribunal has found that since there was

no valid driving licence for the rider of the motor cycle, the tribunal

has fastened the liability on the registered owner and the rider of

the motorcycle. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

14. The tribunal has rightly found that the insurer should

pay the amount and then recover the said amount from the

registered owner and driver. I do not find any reason to interfere

with the same. But, I make it clear that in case the amount

awarded by the tribunal is realised from the appellant/owner, the

appellant can recover the said amount with interest awarded by

the tribunal from the date of payment till realisation from the

additional fifth respondent, through due process of law. The

appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA NO. 2872 OF 2014

ABDUL KHADER Vs   ARUMUGAN

PRESENT

MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

Decided on 10.07.2025 

Citation: 2025:KER:50546

Print Page

Whether registered owner of vehicle can be held liable for accident even if vehicle is transferred by him?

The principle underlying the
provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a
motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal
heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a
state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation
ought not to be burdened with following a trail of
successive transfers, which are not registered with the
Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to
defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act.
Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate
the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present
case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the
vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning
of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation
stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was
uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a
misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in
Reshma (2015)3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi
(2014) 14 SCC 142.
14. The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to
intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under
Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of
the vehicle. In T.V. Jose (2001)8 SCC 748, this Court
observed that there can be transfer of title by payment
of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the
purposes of the Act, the person whose name is
reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is
the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section
2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law
must be fulfilled.”
9. The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-

“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.” 3
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11369 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.27296 of 2018)

PRAKASH CHAND DAGA  Vs SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.

Dated:December 14, 2018.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 66,(2019) 2 SCC 747,2019(4) MHLJ 514

Print Page

When confiscation of vehicle seized in forest offence is permissible?

 The grievance of the Petitioner that she was not given
sufficient opportunity is baseless in as much as she was given notice as

contemplated under section 61B of the said Act and she had appeared
before the authorised Officer.
10. Her stand before the authorised Officer was that she was
not in any manner responsible for the activities of Harshad Thakare as
the vehicle was in exclusive possession of Harshad Thakare. Learned
counsel Mr. Shaikh has submitted that the vehilce was being plied as
taxi and Harshad Thakare was not supposed to use the vehicle for any
illegal purposes. It was submitted that since the vehicle was in
exclusive possession of Harshad Thakare the Petitioner cannot be held
vicariously liable for the activities of Harshad Thakare.
11. The Petitioner had failed to produce any document either
before the authorised Officer or before the Appellate Court to prove
that the vehicle was given to Harshad Thakare on hire. The liability of
the registered owner of the vehicle under the said Act is absolute
liability and burden cast upon the registered owner cannot be
discharged by preponderance of probabilities. It is not the law that
the registered owner has to probabilise his case. The law on the point
is very well settled that registered owner of the vehicle has to prove
his case before the authorised Officer that the vehicle was used for

forest offence without his knowledge and connivance. Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of
State of West Bengal Vs. Mahua Sarkar Reported at AIR 2008 SC 1591 has said at para 9 as
under :“
9. The requirement is mandatory that the owner
has to prove that he had no knowledge or had not
connived. It is a matter which is within his
knowledge. Mere assertion without anything else
will not suffice. There is another requirement that
either he or his agent, if any, or the person incharge
thereof had taken all reasonable and
necessary precaution against such use. This aspect
has to be established by the concerned person by
sufficient material. As noted above, mere assertion
in that regard could not be sufficient.”
12. As such, assertion of the Petitioner that vehicle was given
to Harshad Thakare on hire basis cannot be accepted unless there is
sufficient material to support the assertion. There was no oral
evidence or any documentary proof either before the authorised
Officer or before the Appellate Court to prove the assertions of the
Petitioner. If there was no agreement in writing, the Petitioner at least
could have examined some witnesses to show that vehicle was being
plied by Harshad Thakare exclusively as a passenger vehicle. As such,
in my opinion the Petitioner has failed to discharge burden cast upon her. The order of the authorised Officer therefore was absolutely
correct.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 2013
Mrs. Kavita Sandip Tandel,

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
The Authorized Officer &
Assistant Conservator of Forest, Wild
Life Sanctuary Tansa, Shahapur,
DistrictThane.

CORAM:M.
L. TAHALIYANI, J.
DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2015.
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2760

Print Page