JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal directed against the Judgment of the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 5-2-83 whereby the learned Member, Tribunal has decreed the compensation to the extent of Rs. 11,700/- with 6% interest. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13-8-1972 in the evening a truck bearing No. RJQ 8139 was coming from Jaisalmer to Jodhpur. In this truck Ramesh aged 20 years was travelling, Mangal Singh was the driver of the truck. Munna Lal was sitting along with him. It is alleged that Mangal Singh driver of the truck drove the truck in 'a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which near Pokaran this truck got over turned and deceased Ramesh Chandra was crushed to death. The claimant of the deceased Ramash Chandra filed the present claim petition, and claimed a compensation in a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The Tribunal after recording necessary evidence and hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner and he further found that owner of the truck was Munna Lal. Therefore, the present claim petition was filed against the driver Mangal Singh and Munna Lal the owner of the vehicle. The claim of claimants was decreed to the extent of Rs. 11,700/-. 3. Aggrieved against this award, Munna Lal the owner of the vehicle has filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. Bhansali, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. Learned Counsel submits that no eye witness of the accident was examined and in the present case it has not been proved that whether the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner or not. In support of his contention Mr. Bhansali has relied on Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. 1977 ACJ 118 : 1977 TAC 320 (SC) . 5. I have considered the arguments of Mr. Bhansali and have also gone through the necessary evidence on record. Braham Dutt PW 3 was first person to reach after the happening of the accident. Bhansali has relied on Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. 1977 ACJ 118 : 1977 TAC 320 (SC) . 5. I have considered the arguments of Mr. Bhansali and have also gone through the necessary evidence on record. Braham Dutt PW 3 was first person to reach after the happening of the accident. He deposed that he was coming from Jaisalmer and when be reached near the place of accident he found that the truck was over turned and deceased was crushed under the stones, which were loaded, in the truck He further deposed that he enquired from Khalasi about happening of accident and he told him that the truck was driven in excessive speed. Reference in this connection may be made to the statement of Munna Lal which were recorded in the criminal case and the same was placed on record as Ex. 8. In that Munna Lal has deposed that at the relevant time there was sand storm and the road was blocked by the sand dunes. In order to negotiate the sand dunes the truck was driven with a speed of 40 km. and when the truck was passing the sand dunes it got overturned. 6. So far as the basic principle is concerned that no owner can be saddled with compensation unless it is proved that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner cannot be disputed. This also has to be discharged by the claimant that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the present case there is statement of Braham Putt who has deposed that according to his talk with the Khalasi of that vehicle that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. The another material is police challan which has been filed against the driver of the truck that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Then there is statement of Munna Lal (Ex. 8) owner of the truck who was sitting with the driver at the time of fatal accident. The non-claimant has not produced any evidence to the contrary more so he has not explained that in what circumstances the vehicle got overturned. On the basis of weight of this evidence I hold that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused the death of deceased Ramesh Chandra. 7. The non-claimant has not produced any evidence to the contrary more so he has not explained that in what circumstances the vehicle got overturned. On the basis of weight of this evidence I hold that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused the death of deceased Ramesh Chandra. 7. Now, coming to the question that whether Munna Lal was the owner of the vehicle or not. Mr. Bhansali has urged that Munna Lal was not owner of the truck. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to Ex. 7 certified copy of the registration for showing that this vehicle was transferred in the name of Munna Lal on 10-11-1972 whereas the accident took place on 13-8-1972, therefore, Munna Lal cannot be saddled with the claim of compensation. In support of this contention learned Counsel has invited my attention to Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Dewalal and Ors. 1977 ACJ 150 : AIR 1977 Raj 121 ., and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 29/1987, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela Rani and Ors. decided on 8-4-1987 . In the present case, from the evidence of PW 6 Daya Shankar Gupta and PW 3 Braham Dutt, it clearly transpires that at the relevant time Munna Lal was the owner of the vehicle. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that according to his investigation the owner of this vehicle was Munna Lal. Likewise PW 3 Braham Dutt has also stated that Munna Lal was the owner of the truck. Mr. Bhansali wants to base his arguments on the basis of Ex. 7, whereby in the record of the Transport Authority this vehicle has been transferred on 10-11-1972. The certificate of transfer is not a conclusive proof. It has been observed in the case of M/s. Automobile Transport 1977 ACJ 150 : air 1977 RAJ 121 . that transfer of vehicle on a particular date cannot be taken to be the conclusive proof of actual transfer of ownership. It is only a factor showing the transfer in the record of the Transport Authorities. Actually the vehicle may have passed on much before this. The experience shows that number of times the actual transfer in the transport department takes place much after the actual transfer of the vehicle. It is only a factor showing the transfer in the record of the Transport Authorities. Actually the vehicle may have passed on much before this. The experience shows that number of times the actual transfer in the transport department takes place much after the actual transfer of the vehicle. Thus, simply because the vehicle has been transferred in the record of the Transport Department With effect from 12-11-1976 this will not absolve Munna Lal. According to the evidence on record it transpires that vehicle was actually transferred much before and physical possession was with Munna Lal. There is another significant fact that Munna Lal was also travelling in the same truck at the relevant time as the owner. 8. Mr. Bhansali has also submitted in the case of New India Assurance Co. (supra) wherein it has been held that if the transfer is not proved then it will be deemed that the person took out the vehicle with the permission of the original owner. Transfer is a question of fact and that can only be proved by leading necessary evidence to this effect. In the event of the fact that the transfer is not proved then alone the original owner can be traced back. But where actual transfer is proved and it is established that the vehicle has been transferred from one owner to another then the original ownership stands discharged. In the present case the evidence shows that the vehicle was in the actual ownership of Munna Lal and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Daya Shankar Gupta Investigating Officer and PW 3 Braham Dutt. From this it is established that Munna Lal was at the relevant time the actual owners of the vehicle. Thus, I hold that Munna Lal was the owner of the vehicle and the Tribunal has rightly held so. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******