(Oral):

CM-2377-CII-2026

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO-551-2026

Respondent No.1, Dharambir, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of damage caused to his truck bearing registration No. HR-46-3217, which was involved in a motor vehicular accident alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration No. HR-26A-1663.

2. In the said accident Balwant, the driver of the offending dumper, died. Surender, the driver of Truck No. HR-46-3217 (not the present appellant), also died; and Sandeep @ Sanjay sustained injuries. As a consequence, three separate claim petitions, relating to death, injury and property damage, were filed and were disposed of by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a common award dated 15.02.2007.

3. The present appeal is confined only to the award of compensation of Rs.40,000/- granted in favour of respondent No.1 Dharambir towards damage to his truck. The findings on negligence and the remaining awards are not under challenge.

4. It is relevant to notice that the appellant Surinder Kumar, claiming himself to be the owner of the offending dumper, had earlier filed FAO-1091-2008 before this Court. The said appeal was decided on 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby this Court clarified the factual position regarding:

                   * the identity of the driver of the offending dumper; and

                   * the basis on which recovery rights had been granted to the Insurance Company.

5. This Court found that recovery rights had been granted on an erroneous premise that Surinder Kumar himself was driving the offending dumper. It was clarified that the dumper was, in fact, being driven by Balwant (since deceased) and, therefore, the Tribunal was required to examine whether Balwant possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the limited issue of recovery rights.

6. Pursuant to the remand, the learned Tribunal reconsidered the matter and vide award dated 04.09.2025 (impugned herein), held that Balwant, driver of the offending dumper, was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident; and Surinder Kumar (appellant) was the registered owner of the offending dumper on the date of accident. The Tribunal further found that the alleged transfer of the vehicle by the appellant to respondent No.3 Devki Nandan, on the basis of an affidavit, did not result in a legally valid transfer under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the registration continued to stand in the name of the appellant. Consequently, recovery rights were granted to the Insurance Company against the appellant.

7. Assailing the aforesaid finding, learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the offending dumper had already been transferred to respondent No.3 Devki Nandan, the appellant could not have been saddled with recovery liability and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

8. The contention raised is wholly devoid of merit.

9. The law on the issue is no longer res integra. In Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 983, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that for the purposes of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner of the vehicle, as reflected in the records of the registering authority, continues to be liable, irrespective of any alleged sale or transfer that is not duly recorded in accordance with law. Mere execution of an affidavit or private arrangement between parties does not divest the registered owner of statutory liability, unless the transfer is duly effected and reflected in the registration records as mandated under the Act.

10. In the present case, the appellant admittedly continued to be the registered owner of the offending dumper on the date of accident. The finding to the effect that the driver Balwant was found to be not holding a valid driving licence has not been disputed; and the alleged transfer in favour of respondent No.3 was neither proved in accordance with law nor reflected in the official registration records.

11. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the appellant, and no illegality or perversity can be found in the impugned award.

12. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.