JUDGMENT R.K. Varma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the award dated 12-7-1982 made by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Indore in Claim Case No. 214/79, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 27,300/- to the claimant in respect of his injuries with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:-- On 22-9-79 while the claimant Ghisalal was going on his cycle from Depalpur to his village Khajariya, he was hit and run over by the truck bearing Registration No. MPE 1405 belonging to respondent No. 3 Kailash-chandra. The truck had passed over the right leg of the claimant causing grievous injuries and the claimant's leg had to be emputated below the knee. 3. The claimant filed the instant claim petition on 27-11-1979 joining as non-applicants the driver of the offending truck Nihalsingh and the Insurance Company with which the said truck stood insured during the material period covering the date of the accident. Later, by amendment made on 28-4-1981, respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra was joined as the third non-applicant, being the owner of the truck in question on the date of the accident. 4. The respondent driver Nihalsingh appeared through counsel on four dates of hearing and thereafter remained absent and was proceeded against ex parte since 13-12-1980. The respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra, owner of the truck, was made a party by amendment dated 28-4-1981 but he did not appear even after service of notice on him and the case proceeded ex parte against him also since 14-7-1980. No written statement was filed either on behalf of the driver, non-applicant No. 1 or the owner non-applicant No. 3. 5. The non-applicant No. 2, Insurance Co., alone entered appearance and resisted the claim. It was alleged by the Insurance Company that non-applicant No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck in question because he had already sold it to the non-applicant No. 1 Nihalsingh driver, prior to the date of the accident without intimation to the Insurance Company in that regard. 6. It was alleged by the Insurance Company that non-applicant No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck in question because he had already sold it to the non-applicant No. 1 Nihalsingh driver, prior to the date of the accident without intimation to the Insurance Company in that regard. 6. After trial, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, adduced in the case by the claimant and the non-applicant Insurance Company found that the non-applicant Nihalsingh was driving the said truck on the date of the accident, and the truck stood insured with the Insurance Company during the relevant time. But the learned Tribunal found that the non-applicant No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the said truck during the relevant time and this finding is under challenge in this appeal. 7. The learned Tribunal held that the accident leading to amputation of right leg and permanent disability of the claimant-injured was as a rest of rash as neglient driving of the truck in question and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 27,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petitiori against the non-applicant driver Nihalsingh only and rejected the claim as against other two non-applicants namely, the Insurance Company and the owner of the truck. 8. Being aggrieved by the findings of the learned Tribunal and the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the claimant Ghisalal filed this appeal. 9. During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant injured Ghisalal died and his legal representatives have been brought on record on 26-7-1985. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in finding that the insured respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck in question on the date of the accident and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company which had insured Kailashchandra in respect of the truck in question for the period covering the accident was not liable. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has contended that after the death of the claimant-injured Ghisalal, the right to sue did not survive and as such, the Legal Representatives of the deceased claimant are not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of the injury suffered by the deceased Ghisalal. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has contended that after the death of the claimant-injured Ghisalal, the right to sue did not survive and as such, the Legal Representatives of the deceased claimant are not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of the injury suffered by the deceased Ghisalal. 12. While the claim case was proceeding ex parte against respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra and he was not attending the case, the counsel for respondent Insurance Company addressed a letter-cum-notice to Kailashchandra dated 23-8-1981 (Ex.2NA-1) in which the respondent No. 2 recorded its conjecture that prior to the date of accident, Kailashchandra appeared to have sold the vehicle to Nihalsingh respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the letter-cum-notice reads as under: -- "It appears that prior to date of accident you have sold the vehicle to Shri Nihalsingh S/o Bhagirath, gram Piploda, if the above fact is true, kindly contact me or insurance company and file the written-statement. Failing which whatever my clients will be required to pay under law, for want of your co-operation, the same with costs and interest shall be recovered from you which please note." On the back side of this letter-cum-notice, however, there is an endorsement made by Kailashchandra respondent No. 3 giving out the name of a different person being the purchaser. It is stated that he had sold the truck No. 1405 MPE to Ratansingh Kalota, village Sumra, Tahsil Depalpur on 20-8-1978 itself and, therefore, he could not inform the Insurance Company about the accident which occurred after the sale of the truck. During the pendency of the claim case, the claimant-appellant Ghisalal made an amendment on 28-4-1981 in the claim-petition wherein it was stated that Kailashchandra was the owner of the truck and as such was joined as non-applicant No. 3. In the petition by the same amendment, the non-applicant No. 1 Nihal-singh was alleged to be the driver and not the owner of the truck. 13. In the petition by the same amendment, the non-applicant No. 1 Nihal-singh was alleged to be the driver and not the owner of the truck. 13. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company amended its written-statement on 22-10-81 by adding paragraph 10 in special pleadings to the effect that on the date of the alleged accident, Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck, he having sold the truck to respondent No. 1 Nihalsingh prior to the date of the accident and as such, Kailashchandra had no interest in the truck and the alleged policy would stand lapsed on the date of sale. 14. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company examined Kailashchandra as its witness. Kailashchandra stated about the endorsement on the back-side of Ex.2-NA-1 saying that it was written and signed by him. He further stated that text of the endorsement was written by him on the asking of the counsel for the Insurance Company. In his statement this witness has at the out set stated that the truck MPE 1405 was owned by him but in the year 1979 he had contracted to sell it to Nihalsingh. He has also stated in latter part of the examination that he had received Rs. 200/- as earnest money from Nihalsingh on 20-8-1978 and the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- were received by him from Nihalsingh on 15-12-1979 i.e. after the date of accident (22-9-1979). The contesting respondent Insurance Company did not examine either Nihalsingh or Ratansingh or even Kailashchandra in the case to establish that the truck in question was sold for consideration to any one. 15. On the other hand, the claimant examined the concerned Registration clerk of the office of the RTO named Madanlal Dube (AW-5). This witness has stated that on 22-9-1979 (date of accident) the truck bearing Registration No. MPE 1405, stood registered in the name of Kailashchandra as owner and that Kailashchandra had given information about the purchase by him of the said truck, on 17-8-1978 but entry about the transfer was made in the records on 18-12-1979. The witness further stated that on 20-12-1979, the said truck was transferred in the name of one Radheshyam of Depalpur on 14-1-1980. The truck was transferred in the name of Smt. Kamla Sethi and the truck stands registered in her name. The witness further stated that on 20-12-1979, the said truck was transferred in the name of one Radheshyam of Depalpur on 14-1-1980. The truck was transferred in the name of Smt. Kamla Sethi and the truck stands registered in her name. Although the claimant Ghisalal had amended the claim petition joining Kailashchandra as owner and Nihalsingh as mere driver, he in his cross-examination stated that Nihalsingh was the owner and driver of the truck. 16. On the material in the pleadings and evidence extracted as above from the record of the case, it is to be judged whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that Nihalsingh and not Kailashchandra was the owner of the truck on the date of accident is justified. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that there is no proof that the registered owner of the vehicle Kailashchandra was divested of owership by reason of any transfer to any particular transferee before the date of accident. Neither Nihalsingh driver nor the alleged transferee Ratansingh entered the witness-box to state about the transfer of vehicle by Kailashchandra to either of them. 18. The respondent registered owner Kailashchandra entered the witness-box, but he had not pleaded any transfer by him to either Nihalsingh or Ratansingh. Even in the witness box his stand has not been considered and is unreliable inasmuch as he deposed about the agreement of sale of the vehicle in favour of Nihalsingh and has also referred to the endorsement made by him on the reverse of Ex.2-NA-1 letter-cum-notice in which the transferee's name is alleged to be Ratansingh. No one had appeared before the Court claiming to be the transferee. 19. The above state of evidence adduced in the case is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the registered owner Kailashchandra continue to be and was the owner during the period of cover of the policy. The evidence of the Registration Clerk of the office of R.T.O. Madanlal (AW-5) shows that the name of Kailashchandra as owner continued until 14-1-1980 when one Radheshyam was shown to be the transferee. Subsequently, the name of Smt. Kamla Sethi has been shown to be the transferee. The evidence of this witness which is apparently based on record also makes it highly doubtful that there was any transfer in favour of Nihalsingh or Ratansingh prior to the date of accident. Subsequently, the name of Smt. Kamla Sethi has been shown to be the transferee. The evidence of this witness which is apparently based on record also makes it highly doubtful that there was any transfer in favour of Nihalsingh or Ratansingh prior to the date of accident. It is true that the claimant Ghisalal in the cross-examination has stated that Nihalsingh was the owner and driver of the truck, but that would not be sufficient to establish any transfer in favour of Nihalsingh since that statement is not in answer to the question relating to any transfer. The claimant Ghisalal had initially guessed the driver Nihalsingh to be the owner also, but during the pendency of the suit at a later stage, an amendment was made in the claim petition joining Kailashchandra as the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the claimant who had not known as to who was the owner was apt to make a mistake about naming the owner, in his statement. But certainly misstating the name of the owner cannot imply any admission of transfer on the part of the claimant particularly when no question about transfer was put to him. 20. In view of the state of evidence on record as discussed, I am of the opinion that the finding of the learned Tribunal as to transfer of the vehicle by the registered owner before the date of accident cannot be upheld and must be negatived. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has further submitted that the defence that there was sale of the vehicle during the period of cover and the policy had lapsed is not one of the defence available to the insured under Section 96(2), as against the third party claim. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madras in Dharman v. N. C. Shrinivasan, 1990 Ace CJ 27 : (AIR 1990 Madras 14), which refers to a Full Bench Decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Madi-neni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, 1986 Ace CJ 1: (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 62). 22. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has also submitted that where the insured-owner entered into an agreement of sale and delivered possession to the transferee without receiving full consideration and neither the Transport Authority nor the Insurance Company was informed of such an agreement, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of an accident which took place in the meantime because an agreement to sell cannot be treated as an absolute sale so as to divest the insured of the ownership of the vehicle. A Division Bench decision of this Court in Patharibai Karan-singh v. Firm Lalji Shankarlal, 1985 Ace CJ 526 : (AIR 1985 Madh Pra 103), has been relied on by the learned counsel in this connection. 23. The learned counsel has also referred to a case of Geetabai v. Hussainkhan, 1985 Ace CJ 44 (Madh Pra), to submit that there is also a possibility of an unscrupulous owner of a vehicle indulging in the fake transfer of a vehicle to avoid his liability to pay compensation to the claimants, claiming compensation on account of accident caused by the vehicle. 24. Next, I come to consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that on account of death of the original claimant Ghisalal the claim based on the personal injury of Ghisalal had abated. The learned counsel for the appellants legal representatives of the claimant has submitted that the cause of action had merged in the award passed in favour of the claimant and forms part of his estate and as such devolves on the legal representatives who would be entitled to the award. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. The kittil Geopalankutty Nair, AIR 1986 SC 411 , wherein the Supreme Court had held that where a suit for defamation has resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the cause of action merges in a decree and the decretal debt forms a part of his estate and the appeal from the decree by the defendant becomes a question of benefit or detriment to the estate of the plaintiff-respondent, which his legal representative is entitled to uphold and defendant and is, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased-respondent-plaintiff. 25. 25. In the instant case the Award of compensation in respect of the injuries resulting in permanent disability of the claimant-injured Ghisalal, was made by the learned Tribunal. But Ghisalal, being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, filed the instant appeal against the Award for enhancement of compensation and also for reversal of the finding whereby the learned Tribunal exonerated the respondent Insurance Company, from liability to pay compensation upon a finding that the owner of the vehicle had transferred the vehicle to a third party prior to the date of the accident. According to the contention of the claimant the alleged transfer of the vehicle to a third party could not be held proved on the basis of evidence on record and the learned Tribunal should have held the respondent Insurance Company, jointly and severally liable with the owner and driver for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 26. The award of compensation made in favour of the claimed injured before his death had apparently formed a part of his estate. Upon the instant appeal having been filed by the claimant-injured the two points which required determination by this Court were firstly, the amount of enhancement for a just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant and secondly; the liability of the respondent Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. As regards enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries it can be said that the cause of action to sue for enhancement of compensation in respect of personal injury sustained by the claimant did not survive on the death of the claimant injured during the pendency of the appeal. But as regards the liability to pay compensation which had been determined in an award made by the learned Tribunal and as such had become an estate realisable from the respondents, the right to prosecute the appeal did survive for obtaining a just determination of the share of liability among the respondents inter se. 27. But as regards the liability to pay compensation which had been determined in an award made by the learned Tribunal and as such had become an estate realisable from the respondents, the right to prosecute the appeal did survive for obtaining a just determination of the share of liability among the respondents inter se. 27. It is thus clear that it may not be permissible for the legal representatives of the deceased claimant who died during the pendency of the appeal, to prosecute the appeal for enhancement of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the deceased claimant against the respondents, as is the case here, but the legal representatives of the deceased claimant are certainly entitled to the award of compensation already made by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant before his death and to prosecute this appeal for fixing the liability of payment among the respondents inter se. Since in the instant case, it has not been proved that thee owner Kailashchandra had transferred me vehicle before the date of accident which took place during the cover of the policy, it must be held that the respondent-Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable along with the owner and the driver to pay the amount of compensation awarded. 28. Accordingly, the award made by the learned Tribunal shall stand modified in the light of the observations aforesaid. This appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.