NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that in case the previous owner of a vehicle fails to change the ownership status in the registration records, he or she will be liable to pay compensation fees arising out of any accidents that involve the vehicle in question.

How did this judgement arise?

Vijay Kumar had sold his car to another person way back in 2007. That person sold it to another owner in 2008.

The third owner of the car sold it to one Naveen Kumar and he claimed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that he had further sold it to one Meer Singh, reports TOI.

While the car was under the ownership of Meer Singh, a person driving it got involved in an accident which left one killed and another injured. Following this, the tribunal had awarded Rs. 3.85 lakh compensation and ordered Vijay Kumar to be jointly liable with the driver of the car as the registration records still had his name.

Kumar challenged it in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and his appeal was allowed. However, through advocate Rishi Malhotra, one of the successive owners challenged the HC judgement and stated that a decision contrary to law cannot be rendered by the court.

"In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to have transferred the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30), making 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 case of a death, the legal heirs of deceased 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 statutory object and purpose of the Act," said a three-judge SC bench.