Registered Owner Can’t Escape MACT Proceedings Merely By Claiming Vehicle Was Sold: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Deletion Under Order I Rule 10 CPC

Case Name: Anil Kukreja @ Anil Kumar v. Amrinder Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 14 May 2026

Citation: CR-4075-2026

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person whose name continues as the registered owner of a vehicle in official records cannot seek deletion from MACT proceedings merely by asserting that possession and ownership had already been transferred. The Court observed that disputed questions regarding transfer of ownership and compliance with statutory formalities under the Motor Vehicles Act require adjudication after evidence and cannot be decided summarily under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

Summary: The revision petition arose out of proceedings pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur, where the petitioner had been impleaded as respondent on the ground that he continued to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the order of the MACT whereby his application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking deletion from the array of parties had been declined.

The petitioner contended that he had already sold the vehicle long before the accident occurred. According to him, he had purchased a new vehicle from an authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer under an exchange scheme and had handed over possession of the offending vehicle along with signed Forms 29 and 30 to the dealer in July 2022. It was further claimed that the dealer subsequently sold the vehicle onward to other purchasers, eventually resulting in transfer to respondent No.2 prior to the accident dated 10.11.2023.

The petitioner argued that once he had divested himself of possession and executed the transfer documents, his liability stood extinguished and therefore his name deserved deletion from the MACT proceedings. Reliance was placed upon an earlier decision of the High Court where a registered owner had been absolved of liability because statutory transfer formalities under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been duly completed.

However, the High Court distinguished the earlier precedent and observed that the factual matrix of the present case was entirely different. Justice Virinder Aggarwal noted that the alleged transfer transactions, intermediary sales, and completion of statutory formalities were all disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Importantly, on the date of the accident, the petitioner admittedly continued to be reflected as the registered owner in official records.

The Court emphasized that under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the issue of ownership cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of assertions raised in an application seeking deletion from proceedings. The legal effect and genuineness of the alleged transfers would have to be examined during trial after appreciation of evidence.

Holding that the MACT had correctly refused to delete the petitioner from the array of parties at the threshold stage, the High Court found no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refusing deletion of the petitioner from the array of respondents. The Court clarified that its observations were confined only to adjudication of the revision petition and would not prejudice the merits of the main claim proceedings pending before the MACT.