JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 1978 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur. It was ordered by means of the impugned order that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 49,600/- to the widow Smt. Meera Devi and a minor daughter named Sandhya along with pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that admittedly appellant is the owner of the registered Vehicle No. UPE 1238. The accident in the present case took place on the 28th October, 1974, as a result of which admittedly one Om Prakash died. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is to the effect that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. After considering various facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the widow of the deceased and his minor daughter were entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,600/-. The contention of the appellant is that on the date of occurrence he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had transferred the same to one Hardwar, son of Rama Nand, on the fifth July, 1974. According to him, when the accident took place on 28th October, 1974, the vehicle did not belong to him. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that since the appellant has not complied with Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act of intimating to the registering authority within stipulated time, it would be deemed that he continued to be the owner of the jeep. It is on this ground that compensation was decreed as against the present appellant. According to the counsel for both the parties Hardwar was also a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, but it seems that he had not filed any objection. The Tribunal decreed compensation only as against the appellant on account of the said accident. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal could not be sustained since question of ownership can not be decided by only taking shelter of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal could not be sustained since question of ownership can not be decided by only taking shelter of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act merely deals with transfer of ownership, which stipulates "where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred, the transferor shall within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected..." Similarly, it also stipulated that "the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration." It is significant to note here that Sub-section (1-A) of Section 31 refers to the consequences of non-compliance by either transferor or transferee under Subsection (1). The consequence referred therein is to pay in lieu of any action that may be taken against the transferor or transferee u/s 112, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees. The only consequence itself reveals that non-compliance of intimation cannot constitute a ground for inferring that the vehicle has not been transferred. The only consequence referred therein is penalty of payment of rupees one hundred. In view of this, it cannot be said that mere non-compliance of Section 31 an inference could be drawn that ownership has not been transferred. The learned Tribunal committed an error in drawing that inference only on the basis of Section 31 of the Act. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have gone on the basis of evidence on record specially when the transferee was also a party in the said proceeding to record a finding independent of Section 31 of the Act whether the said vehicle was really transferred to Hardwar or not. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on a case P.K. Pandey v. Smt. Premlata Chaudhary and Ors. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on a case P.K. Pandey v. Smt. Premlata Chaudhary and Ors. AIR 1980 Ori 182 on identical attention in that case it was held that the transfer for ownership without registration is not void and ineffective. With respect I am in full consonance with the said view. There is nothing u/s 31 to draw any inference that mere non-compliance of that section could make the transfer either void or invalid. Similarly, in Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Dewalal and Others, AIR 1977 Raj 121 it was held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding registration and issue of permits have nothing to do with the ownership of the vehicle. They only provide for regulation of use of the Motor Vehicle in public places and if the requirements of them were not fulfilled penalties were attracted. This decision also took into consideration the decisions of various other High Courts. I have perused those authorities, and, with respect, I am in full agreement with the decisions given therein. 6. In view of the aforesaid the judgment and Order 25th April, 1978, passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 25th April 1978, passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the "question about the ownership of the vehicle. After deciding the question of ownership whether the vehicle was transferred by the present appellant to Hardwar or not and as to who is the owner of the vehicle, then he should decide the question of compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased. Since this case is a very old one it is desirable that the Tribunal shall expeditiously decide this case at an early date. Costs shall be borne by the parties.