ORDER
S.L. Jain, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth the 'Act') non-applicant No. 1, Aaditya Khare has challenged the legality, validity, propriety and conectness of the award dated 20-2-1998, passed by IVth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa, in Claim Case No. 24/97.
2. The facts of this case, as have been unfolded, in nutshell are that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a petition under Section 106 of the Act stating that they are the legal representatives of deceased Sudama Prasad. On 26-7-91 doceased Sudama Presad along with his brother Shiv Kumar was going on feet by the side of the road on national highway No. 7. When he reached near village Baila, Brijendra Kumar, respondent No. 5 driving motor cycle No. MKA 4563 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Baila and dashed the same against him, Sudama Prasada sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to P.S. Chorhata where the report of the accident was lodged, Thereafter he was shifted to G.M.H. Hospital, Rewa where his condition went on deteriorating and despite all possible efforts to save him, he succumbed to the injuries on 27-9-91 at 8 P.M.
3. The claimants stated that the deceased Sudama Prasad was aged about 22 years at the time of his death. He was a very good cook and was working in Pate! Hotel as cook. He was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of salary, He also used to get his breakfast and food in the hotel and a sum of Rs. 5/- per day by way of allowance. He was also looking after agriculture and earning Rs. 5,000/- per annum The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 8,01,000/-, It was alleged by the claimants that the non-applicant No. 1/appellant was the registered owner of the offending motor cycle which was sold by him to non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4, Ramdas Tripathi.
4. The claim was contested by non-applicants. The respondent No. 5 who is alleged to have been driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, has stated that on the relevant dote he was going towards Rewa. His cousin was sitting on the motor cycle as pillion rider. A jeep and a truck were coming from Baila side at a very high speed. They were not prepared to give side to each other, As a result of which the jeep turned towards the side of the road, Deceased Sudama Prasad was trying to cross the road from the wrong side and he was dashed by the truck. On being dashed by the truck and he fell down by the side of the road and received serious injuries. He lodged report of the accident at police station Chorhata but no action was taken on his report. He stated that he is not responsible for the accident.
5. The appellant pleaded that before the date of the accident the vehicle in question was sold by him to non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- and the possession of the vehicle was delivered to him on 22-6-91. Therefore, after 22-6-91 the non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4 is the owner of the vehicle and is responsible for the compensation. The claimants are not entitled to any compensation from him. The appellant further pleaded that the amount of compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive,
6. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues and recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was driven by non-applicant No. 3/respondent No. 5, Brijendra Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, who dashed the same against the deceased as a result of which the deceased suffered serious injuries and later on died. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that as the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle he is responsible for the compensation. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4 is not responsible for the compensation as it could not be proved that the information regarding the sale of motor cycle was communicated to the R.T.O. It was unnatural that the non-applicant No. 1 sent the information regarding the sale of the vehicle to the R.T.O. by post under certificate of posting as the non-applicant No. 1 was living at Satna and the office of the R.T.O. was also at Satna. The trial Court also found that Ex. D-3 does not disclose that the information regarding sale of motor cycle was sent to R.T.O., Satna under certificate of posting. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,200/- payable by the appellant and respondent No. 5 jointly and severally. The non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4 was exonerated from the liability of compensation,
7. It is this award of the Tribunal which is the cause of grievance of the appellant.
8. I have heard Shri Pranay Verma, Counsel for appellant and Shri Brijesh Mishra, Counsel for respondents and perused the record of the tribunal, including the impugned award.
9. Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant vehementy submitted that the vehicle in question was sold by the appellant to non-applicant No 2 and the possession of the same was also delivered to him, therefore, the Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant from the liability and should have saddled the liability on non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4.
10. The non-applicant No. 1 has examined himself as NAW-1 . Ho has stated that ho was the owner of the motor cycle in question. This vehicle was sold by him to Ramdas Tripathi vide sale deed Ex.D-1 after receiving a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. Possession of the motor cycle was also handed over by him to Ramdas Tripathi. He also stated that the information regarding the sale of the vehicle was sent by him to R.T.O., Satna, vide Ex.D-2, under certificate of posting on the prescribed form No. 29 along with the copy of the sale letter, R.T.O. Issued a certificate, Ex.D-3 certifying that the vehicle in question has been transferred in the name of Ramdarqs Tripathi. The registering authority made an endorsement on Ex.D-3 to the effect that **Jh vkfnR; [kjs }kjk fnukad 22&6&91 dks okgu dh fcdzh dh xbZ ,oa dk;Zy; esa fnukad 17&12&91 dks mDr okgu dks Jh jkenkl f=ikBh ds uke ij vUrj.k dh xbZ A**
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that on the date of the accident it was non-applicant No. 2 who was having the control of the vehicle, he being in possession of the same. The fact of transfer of the vehicle was recorded in the records of R.T.O. Where a; vehicle was transferred by memo of sale and the sale was reported to the registering authority, the registered owner is absolved of his liability. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the appellant relied on Panna Lal v. Chand Mal and Ors. : AIR1980SC871 , Sanjay Singh Thakur v. Sultan Ahmad and Ors. 1996 MPLJ 63 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and Ors. : AIR1997SC3444 .
12. For contra, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that Section 2(30) of the Act defines 'owner' as a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation; the person. in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. On the date of accident the vehicle was registered in the name of appellant and not in the name of non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4. There was no agreement of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not liable. The counsel submitted that the definition of the ''owner' in the Act is exhaustive and only a registered owner will be treated to be the owner, Therefore, non-applicant No. 2/respondent No. 4 is not liable.
13. A perusal of document, Ex.D-3 reveals that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Ramdaras Tripathi on 17-12-91. Before 17-12-91 Aaditya Khare, the appellant was the owner of the vehicle. The accident occurred on 26-7-91. On this date the vehicle was registered in the name of Aaditya Khare.
14. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Section 50 of the Act deals with the transfer of the ownership. The transferee has reported the transfer to the transferring authority within whose jurisdiction he had the residence, therefore, the appellant was absolved of his liability.
15. The contention cannot be countenanced. In view of the definition of 'owner' under Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of the Act the person in whose name a vehicle stands registered continues to be the owner of the vehicle till the name of the transferee is substituted in the record of the R.T.O. The name of the respondent was transferred on 17-12-91 i.e. long after the date of the accident.
16. It is true that the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was different. In the earlier enactment the definition was not exhaustive, therefore, it included the person in whom the proprietary title vested. In the earlier definition the word 'owner' included the registered owner as well as unregistered owner or transferee of the vehicle but after the change of the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the definition of 'owner' is exhaustive. The judgment in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) relates to the definition of the 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The judgment of Apex Court In Panna Lal's case (supra) also relates to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) relates to hirer in possession.
17. Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not say that the moment the price is paid and the possession of motor vehicle is delivered to the purchaser, the registered owner is absolved of his liability. What is required for the purpose of Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of the Act is that the name of the purchaser is recorded in the registration certificate. Unless the name of the person is registered he cannot become the owner of the vehicle. Thus, on the date of the accident the respondent No. 4 did not become the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant continued to be the owner thereof. The respondent No. 4 became the owner only on 17-12-91 when his name was transferred in the record of the R.T.O. Therefore, in view of the definition of the 'owner' under Sub-section (30) of Section 2 of the Act the appellant alone was the owner of the offending motor cycle on the date of the accident. He was, therefore, responsible for the vicarious liability and respondent No. 4 is not liable as purchaser in whose name the vehicle was not transferred till the date of the accident.
18. So for as the quantum of compensation is concerned, looking to the fact that the deceased was aged about only 20 years at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as a cook and was also getting Rs. 5/- per day as Bhatta and was also having agricultural, income, the compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side. The compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and no interference in this appeal is called for.
19. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Costs as incurred.