JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This Order shall also dispose of MA. No. 43/88. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 18.12.1987 of Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, passed in Claim Case No. 74/85, whereby the claimants (appellants in M.A. No. 39/88) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in all for the death of Fakirchand on 27.12.1984, in a motor accident with a further direction that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to make payment. 2. This is not in dispute that on the date of accident i.e., 26.12.1984 Fakirchand was going on his bicycle while motor cycle No. CPO-440 was being driven by N. A. No. 1 Shriram, who was in actual possession of the motor cycle on the date of incident. Fakirchand sustained injuries and died in consequence thereof. The motor cycle was registered in the name of the Ramesh Chandra (N. A. 2). The same allegedly was transferred to Shriram as contended by Shriram and admitted by Ramesh Chandra. Claimant No. 1 is the widow of deceased while claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are the minor sons of the deceased and respondent No. 3 Amarsingh is the maj or son of the deceased. 3. The claimants have filed a petition with the assertions that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by N.A. 1 Shriram. Fakirchand was in service. He was getting more than Rs. 1,000/- p.m. as pay and spending most of the amount on his family, as such they claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. Non-applicant No. 1 Shriram denied the fact of negligence and pleaded negligence of Fakirchand with the assertions that he was standing with the motor cycle and the cyclist came with speed and dashed against motor cycle. He also pleaded about the contributory negligence. N.A. 2 Ramesh Chandra, on the other hand, pleaded that he had sold the vehicle to Shriram and, therefore, he is not liable to make any payment towards compensation. 4. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Shriram and calculated the dependency at Rs. 650/-p.m. but deducted the amount of pension which has been fixed in favour of claimants, specially claimant No. 1, and, as such, awarded Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Shriram and calculated the dependency at Rs. 650/-p.m. but deducted the amount of pension which has been fixed in favour of claimants, specially claimant No. 1, and, as such, awarded Rs. 20,000/-. The contention of Ramesh Chandra was also rejected as the transfer of the vehicle was neither intimated nor recorded in the register kept by Transport Authority. Hence, these two appeals. (M.A. No. 39/88 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation while M.A. No. 43/88 has been filed by N.A. No. 2 Ramesh Chandra praying for his exoneration from liability of the payment. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amount of compensation pension payable to claimant No. 1. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the income and dependency has been estimated on the lower side and lesser multiplier has been adopted. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 Shriram, has contended that there is no evidence of negligent driving and that Fakirchand himself was negligent in driving the vehicle and dashed against the stationary motorcycle. 6. learned Counsel for appellant Ramesh Chandra (appellant in M.A. No. 43/88) has submitted that the vehicle was transferred to Shriram and was in his possession at the time of accident and, therefore, he is not liable to make payment of compensation. 7. We were taken to the evidence on record. C.W.2 Raghunath (retired government servant and a pensioner) has been examined to prove the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. He has very clearly stated that Mr. Fakirchand who has been addressed as Master was coming from a lane. There was collision at the junction of lane and main-road. He has in the very first sentence stated that Shriram was driving the motor cycle in a very high speed. 8. Shriram, appeared as N.A.W.l, has stated that he was standing with his motor cycle, Fakirchand came on a bicycle and dashed against him and fell down. The injuries as found on the body of Fakirchand which ultimately resulted in death goes to show that there was heavy and forceful impact. 8. Shriram, appeared as N.A.W.l, has stated that he was standing with his motor cycle, Fakirchand came on a bicycle and dashed against him and fell down. The injuries as found on the body of Fakirchand which ultimately resulted in death goes to show that there was heavy and forceful impact. Such grievous and extensive injuries on the body cannot be caused by a simple dash of bicycle against a static motor-cycle. 9. Heavier the vehicle heavier is the responsibility of driver to take caution. In our opinion the fact of rash and negligent driving by Shriram has rightly been found proved and C.W. 2 Raghunath has been rightly believed. C.W.I Laxman has proved the fact of date of birth and date of retirement of Mr. Fakirchand on the basis of his service record. The date of birth is stated to be 8.10.1934. He has further stated that now the date of retirement has been enhanced to 60 years. Thus, on the date of accident Mr. Fakirchand was aged about 50 years and was likely to continue in service for about ten years Mr. Laxman (CW.l) has further proved the fact that Fakirchand was drawing a pay of Rs. 1062/- pr month. 10. Learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency of Rs. 650/- per month. In fact, if 1/3rd income is deducted towards the personal expenditure the dependency would come to Rs. 700/- per month. There was every chance of increase in pay and promotion. In our considered opinion, therefore, the dependency ought to be accepted as Rs. 700/- x 12 = Rs. 8400/- per year. 11. Fakirchand would have retired at the age of 60, but looking to the present survival rate the expectation of life can easily be taken to be about 65 years. Learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10 but in our opinion a multiplier of 7 ought to have been taken. 12. Learned Tribunal has committed an error by deducting the amount of family pension awarded to the claimants (widow and children). The amount of pension and gratuity cannot be deducted while awarding the compensation on the death of a government servant in such motor accident, 1983 AC] 152 Kashiram and Ors. v. S. Rajendra Singh and Anr. Thus, the compensation payable comes to Rs. 8400/- multiplied by 7 = Rs. 58,800/- which may be rounded upto Rs. 59,000/-. The amount of pension and gratuity cannot be deducted while awarding the compensation on the death of a government servant in such motor accident, 1983 AC] 152 Kashiram and Ors. v. S. Rajendra Singh and Anr. Thus, the compensation payable comes to Rs. 8400/- multiplied by 7 = Rs. 58,800/- which may be rounded upto Rs. 59,000/-. Claimants are further entitled for the loss of consortium and love and affection. An amount of Rs. 6000/- would be just compensation on that count. Thus, the total compensation payable comes to Rs. 65,000/-. 13. It appears that the vehicle was not insured at the relevant period and, therefore, the next point that arises for determination is as to whether both the respondents i.e., non-applicant No. IShriram, driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident and Ramesh Chandra, registered owner of the vehicle, are jointly and severally responsible to make payments. 14. The contention of learned Counsel for appellant Ramesh is that the vehicle was transferred and Shriram non-applicant No. 1 was in possession and, therefore, he shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. He has placed reliance on a case reported in 1990 ACJ 126, Balivantsingh v. Jhannubai and Ors., a Division Bench decision of this High Court whereby it was held that the registration of vehicle in the name of the transferee is not essential to complete the transfer. 15. Before answering this question we would like to examine as to whether there was a transfer? 16. The fact of transfer has been pleaded by the registered owner Ra-meshchandra and admitted by Shriram. But no document as to the transfer was adduced. No evidence as to when and how the transfer was effected has been adduced. Further no evidence as to the making of the actual payment for effecting the transfer of the vehicle has been adduced. In such a situation the fact of transfer cannot be accepted and in the absence of proof of transfer it would be deemed that Shriram was driving the vehicle under the permission of Ramesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra was the actual owner of the vehicle. In such a situation both of them would jointly and severally be liable to make payment of compensation adjudged as above. 17. In such a situation both of them would jointly and severally be liable to make payment of compensation adjudged as above. 17. As to the dictum of this High Court we would like to observe that the same is based on the definition of word "owner" as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which reads as follows: “owner" means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. 18. According to old definition it is the person in possession who was deemed to be the owner of the vehicle but now there is a significant change in the definition of "owner" as provided in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as below: "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. 19. According to earlier definition the possession of the vehicle was the main criterion for showing the ownership but now it is the registration of the vehicle that has been accepted to be the main criterion i.e. to say the owner of the vehicle would be deemed to be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered or where such person is minor, the guardian of such minor. 20. This accident occurred in the year 1984 and, therefore, the law including the definition existing as on the date of accident will have to be taken into consideration but the very fact of transfer by Ramesh Chandra in favour of Shriram itself has not been found proved in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. 21. The plea of transfer of vehicle by Ramesh Chandra and the acceptance of the same by the transferee i.e. Shriram appears to be a camouflage for saving the liability of payment. It appears Ramesh Chandra purposely wants to avoid the liability of payment and for this reason a false plea of transfer of vehicle has been raised. 22. 21. The plea of transfer of vehicle by Ramesh Chandra and the acceptance of the same by the transferee i.e. Shriram appears to be a camouflage for saving the liability of payment. It appears Ramesh Chandra purposely wants to avoid the liability of payment and for this reason a false plea of transfer of vehicle has been raised. 22. In such a situation both the non-applicants t.e. Shriram and Ramesh Chandra would be held liable for making payment of the compensation. 23. As a result appeal filed by Ramesh Chandra (M.A. No. 43/88) deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed. 24. Appeal filed by claimants i.e. M.A. No. 39/88 is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 65,000/-. The claimants shall further be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same. 25. Both the non-applicants i.e. Shriram and Ramesh Chandra are jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation amount. Appellant Ramesh Chandra shall bear his own cost of his appeal. Respondents-non-applicants Shriram and Ramesh Chandra shall pay the costs of claimant-appellants. Counsel fee Rs. 1500/-.