M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel representing different parties. The principal point that falls for decision in this appeal is the short question as to whether the 1st respondent can be held to have been the registered owner of the motor cycle No. Mex 680 as on 6-9-1985 which is the date of the incident. The learned trial judge has, after consideration of the record come to the conclusion that the vehicle had been transferred some time prior to that date and as a necessary consequence, recorded the finding that by virtue of this transfer, the insurance company was also no longer liable. There is no dispute about the fact that if the vehicle had been in fact transferred, that the liability of the insurance company ceases unless the policy has been transferred to the new owner. Under these circumstances, the application for the award of compensation came to be dismissed even though the learned judge after a consideration of the other issues recorded the finding that normally he would have awarded an amount of Rs. 28,000/- as compensation to the claimant. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate has submitted that the finding with regard to the transfer is erroneous and that the record undisputedly indicates that the tribunal ought to have accepted the position that respondent 2 was still the owner of the vehicle as on 6-9-1985 and if this was so, the liability of the insurance company to cover the claim would be automatic. For this purpose, he has relied heavily on the evidence of respondent 2 and he has also relied on the documents that have been produced by him in support of his contention that he had delivered the vehicle to the original respondent 1 on 11-8-1985 i. e. , a little over one month prior to the date of the incident. He has also referred to the other documents namely ex. R-2 which is the form No. 29, exs. R-3 and r-4 which are the letters addressed to the insurance company and ex. R-4 letter to r. t. o. 'which have been produced by the respondent. He has also referred to the other documents namely ex. R-2 which is the form No. 29, exs. R-3 and r-4 which are the letters addressed to the insurance company and ex. R-4 letter to r. t. o. 'which have been produced by the respondent. The submission canvassed is that the evidence of this respondent is untrustworthy and when examined particularly in relation to the documents that he has sought to produce that the irresistible conclusion is that the documents produced have been fabricated in Order to set up a plea that a transfer had taken place. As far as the learned Advocate who appears on behalf of respondent 2 is concerned, he submits that the documents speak for themselves and he maintains that his client had in fact parted with the possession of the vehicle and he has sent the requisite intimation to the authorities concerned. It is his case that his liability has come to an end as soon as he has carried out the aforesaid acts and that even if the actual date of transfer of the ownership was 27th i. e. , a few days after the incident has taken place, that he cannot still be held liable. ( 3 ) I need to record that this appeal has been very strongly opposed by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent 3 namely the insurance company. It is his case that it is a requirement under the contract of insurance as also a requirement of law that the liability, if it is to subsist after a transfer, can only do so provided the requisite formalities have been complied with learned counsel points out, and there is little dispute about this position, that on the date when a transfer takes place that the contract between the insurer and the original insured person namely the original owner comes to an end. It is true that the policy can be transferred to the new owner on an application being made and on a prescribed fee being paid. Unless this formality is complied with, the policy cannot stand revived and consequently it is his submission that once the transfer had taken place on 11-8-1985, that the insurance company has been exonerated of the contract. Unless this formality is complied with, the policy cannot stand revived and consequently it is his submission that once the transfer had taken place on 11-8-1985, that the insurance company has been exonerated of the contract. In this context learned counsel places strong reliance on a full bench decision of this court in the case of the National Insurance Company Limited v Mallikarjuna and others , wherein the full bench of this court had occasion to go into the various aspects that accompany the process of transfer and to hold that once the delivery of possession has taken place and the requisite formalities have been completed by the previous owner even if there is some time lag by the r. t. o. in making the necessary transfer in favour of the buyer, that for all intents and purposes in law, the transfer will be complete. We are concerned with the law as laid down by the court in relation to a transfer vis-a-vis the liability of the insurance company and relying on this decision, the learned Advocate submits that the tribunal was fully justified in holding that the transfer had been completed as on 11-8-1985. ( 4 ) ON the material that was placed before the court, the transfer that is claimed to have taken place as on 11-8-1985 is evidenced by the deposition of respondent 2. As far as his evidence is concerned, it is patchy and does not inspire confidence. More importantly, I notice that this particular witness has varied his version from time to time and at different stages when he was before the court. A futile attempt was therefore made to remedy the position after one year. There are certain documents that are produced by him and these documents all originate from the witness himself. Under these circumstances to my mind if the evidence itself is of this calibre, such documents cannot lend any credibility to such evidence. More importantly, respondent 2 claims thit as on 11-8-1985 among other things he has sent an intimation to the insurance company. If this intimation had been received by the insurance company, to my mind it would have been very clearly reflected in the written statement that was filed before the court. More importantly, respondent 2 claims thit as on 11-8-1985 among other things he has sent an intimation to the insurance company. If this intimation had been received by the insurance company, to my mind it would have been very clearly reflected in the written statement that was filed before the court. There is no specific averment in that written statement that the insured has intimated the company of the transfer and that consequently the insurance company cannot be held liable. To my mind, the evidence on transfer is therefore insufficient on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that respondent 2 had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the incident. Learned counsel representing the insurance company submitted his arguments by relying on the extract that has been produced from the letter of the r. t. o. which indicates that as far as the records of that authority are concerned, the transfer has been given effect to on 27-9-1985. He therefore submits that this lends complete credibility and support to the evidence of respondent 2 inasmuch as unless the transfer form along with the requisite intimation had been filed before that authority some time prior to 27-9-1985, that the transfer would not have been given effect on that date. In this case one needs to take cognizance of the fact that approximately three weeks have elapsed from the date when the incident took place and the date when the transfer has been given effect to. Under these circumstances, it would be wrong to conclusively hold that merely because the transfer had in fact taken place on 27-9-1985, that the intimation and the formalities must have been completed on or before 6-9-1985. To my mind, viewed at from any angle it would be both incorrect and impossible to hold that there was sufficient cogent conclusive evidence before the court to establish the fact that the vehicle in question had been transferred as on the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, the finding of the tribunal with regard to this aspect of the matter is erroneous and will have to be set aside. ( 5 ) AS regards the question of the compensation payable, ineed to only record that the learned trial judge has examined the different heads. Under these circumstances, the finding of the tribunal with regard to this aspect of the matter is erroneous and will have to be set aside. ( 5 ) AS regards the question of the compensation payable, ineed to only record that the learned trial judge has examined the different heads. With regard to the aspect of medical evidence, he has come to the conclusion that the treatment though it was relatively serious and prolonged at the h. a. l. hospital, that the appellant was not required to pay for it. In view of the fact that there was some incidental expenditure incurred by him, the learned judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under this head. As far as this head is concerned to my mind, a marginal modification would be justified insofar as admittedly the appellant is an old man and the nature of injuries were extremely serious. He has undergone two prolonged periods of treatment in the hospital and even if the treatment was free, to my mind as far as the incidental expenditure are concerned, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would have been fair. ( 6 ) AS far as the other two heads are concerned, the learned judge has awarded a composite amount of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the fact that the long term damage to the appellant has been extremely grave, the fact that his leg has been shortened considerably and that having regard to his age and the condition to which he is reduced that he would not be able to do any work whatsoever, the court needs to take into account the fact that he will have to be compensated to some reasonable extent. The appellant's learned Advocate has kept his client present in court because he has advanced the additional submission that the appellant is so completely immobilised that he requires the constant help and assistance of some other person even for standing up or moving about. Having regard to these factors to my mind, the aggregate amount of Rs. 25,000/- is required to be stepped up considerably to Rs. 45,000/ -. The appellant would also be entitled to the usual rate of interest at 6% from the date of filing of the petition until date of payment as also to costs in the sum of Rs. 500/ -. 25,000/- is required to be stepped up considerably to Rs. 45,000/ -. The appellant would also be entitled to the usual rate of interest at 6% from the date of filing of the petition until date of payment as also to costs in the sum of Rs. 500/ -. ( 7 ) THE appeal accordingly succeeds. The impugned Order is seta side. It is directed that the respondent 3 shall deposit the aggregate sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with the interest and costs as directed above with the tribunal within 12 weeks. Appellant to be at liberty to withdraw the same. --- *** --- .