JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'The Act'). 2. Aggrieved by the order making the appellant liable as owner, he has preferred this appeal. The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the appellant is the owner of the vehicle. 3. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 2 is the registered owner of the vehicle. Liability of the appellant has been fixed on the basis of the application for transfer and the deposit of the fees for transfer before the registering authority. As has been stated by the official witness proving the same, the documents were not filed in the manner required under law. The grievance of Mr. G.H. Panda, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not given due weight to this irregularity in receipt of the application for transfer. The submission of Mr. Panda is that the Tribunal has not at all considered Ext. A/D, which is the receipt granted by respondent No. 4 for taking interim custody of the vehicle which was seized on account of the accident. In the said document the seized motor cycle is claimed by respondent No. 4 to be his own. Respondent No. 4 has not come to the box to explain the admission in this document (Ext. A/D). 4. In P.K. Panda Vs. Smt. Premalata Choudhury and Others, it has been observed by considering several decisions of this Court and of the other High Courts that the person registered as the owner of a vehicle under the Act may in some circumstances be held not to be the real owner. I am inclined to hold that in the absence of any other material, a presumption is to be drawn that the person named in the certificate of registration is the owner of the vehicle. Where, however, other materials are available a Tribunal is to assess those materials to find the real owner in a case where there is dispute regarding ownership. 5. Normally, I would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the question of fact if there would not have been any material. The Tribunal on the materials rightly held that respondent No. 2 registered as the owner was not the real owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. 5. Normally, I would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the question of fact if there would not have been any material. The Tribunal on the materials rightly held that respondent No. 2 registered as the owner was not the real owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. On assessment of the documsnts coming from the custody of the registering authority it can be said that the presumption of usual procedure being followed cannot be attracted in view of the evidence of the official witness. Ext. A/D is an admission of ownership of respondent No 4 when there was no claim application in sight. Even if the claim application would have been in sight, it is a statement against his own interest. There is no material that in collusion with the appellant or respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 4 has taken the liability on himself. Respondent No. 4 has not given his deposition explaining this admission. No party has also challenged the correctness of this admission. In the circumstances, there being clear admission, in disagreement with the Tribunal, I come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 4 was the owner of the vehicle who was driving it himself. Thus, respondent No. 4 is liable to pay the compensation. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and respondent No. 4 is made liable for the purpose of payment of compensation to the claimant. Since I am making respondent No. 4 liable in this appeal, I give him an opportunity to pay the amount determined by the Tribunal to be the just compensation within three months from today failing which the amount awarded shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. No costs.