JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16th May, 1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 46,000/- in favour of re- spondent No. 1 and 2 (for short 'the claimants') and against appellant. Aggrieved by the award impugned, the appellant owner of Jeep No. RJF 4965 which cause accident has filed this appeal. 2. Dissatisfied by quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 9-9-1983 at about 7.00 P. M. Rajendra Sharda was proceeding on his bicycle on Udaipur-Bhilwara road. When he reached near to ITI on his correct side of road, at the relevant time he was hit from behind by Jeep No. RJF 4965, which was driven rashly and negligently by appellant Chhogalal. Rejendra Sharda was crushed under the wheel of the said jeep. He sustained injuries on his person, he was taken to hospital wherein he succumbed to the injuries very night. The deceased was a young person of 22 years of age and was student of M. Com (Final Yr.). The claimants who are parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,91,000/- against the appellant and respondent No. 3 Surendra Kumar. 4. Originally in the claim petition the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short the Insurance Company') was impleaded as respondent non-applicant No. 3. The Insurance Company filed written statement before the Tribunal with a specific plea that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured on the relevant date of the accident with the non-applicant Insurance Company and accordingly, no award was passed against the Insurance Company. On appreciation of pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal reached to conclusion that the appellant who at the relevant time and date was owner as well as driver of the said jeep while driving the said jeep rashly and negligently, caused the accident and, therefore, held him liable for the compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also record of the Tribunal. I have also scanned and evaluated the material available on the record. 6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the appellant liable for the said accident. It was further contended that respondent No. 3 Surendra Kumar in whose favour the said jeep was registered with the registering authority, had been absolved from the liability. It was further contended that sale of the jeep by respondent No. 3 to the appellant has not been proved and, therefore, respondent No. 3 ought to have been held liable for the said accident and lastly it was contended that the Tribunal fell in error while computing the compensation by applying the multiplier of 15 years purchase factor instead of appropriate multiplier of 12. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants and for respondent No. 3 contended that the jeep in question was sold by respondent No. 3 to the appellant for the consideration much prior to the date on which the said accident was caused by the appellant. It was further contended that the appellant in its written statement filed before the Tribunal admitted in unequivocable term that at the relevant time of the accident, he was owner of the jeep. It was further admitted by appellant that the said jeep was purchased by him from respondent No. 3 Surendra Kumar a year prior to the date of the accident. There are documentary evidence Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4, which also establish that the said jeep was purchased by the appellant much prior to the happening of the accident. It was also contended by learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding a sum of Rs. 46,000/- for death of a young person of 22 years of age. The deceased had a promising career and bright future as he was student of M. Corn. (Final Yr.) and, therefore, according to learned counsel for the claimants, it is a fit case which warrants enhancement of the compensation. 8. The claimants specifically pleaded in Para No. 9 of the claim petition that the appellant is real owner of the jeep on the relevant date of the accident. (Final Yr.) and, therefore, according to learned counsel for the claimants, it is a fit case which warrants enhancement of the compensation. 8. The claimants specifically pleaded in Para No. 9 of the claim petition that the appellant is real owner of the jeep on the relevant date of the accident. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, it was pleaded that the said jeep was sold and transferred to the appellant prior to the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that he sold and transferred the jeep to the appellant vide letter dated 18-8-1983 and it was the appellant who sought release of the jeep from the Criminal Court, which was seized by police soon after the accident. In the written statement filed by the appellant he admitted to be owner of the jeep, but if, the accident by the said jeep was denied. AW-1 Shri Vallabh Sarda, who is father of the deceased in clear terms deposed before the Tribunal that the said jeep was owned by the appellant, which he purchase from respondent No. 3. He further stated that it was the appellant, who got the jeep re- leased from the Criminal Court after the said accident. AW-2 Ajij Mohd. is an eye witness of the occurrence. He stated that on 9-9-1983, while he was going towards Bhilwara City after duty hours of Anmol Industries, a person who was proceeding ahead of him on bicycle on the left side of the road was hit by the jeep from behind and sustained injuries. The injured person was taken to hospital in the very same jeep by him and Bajrang Lai and other persons. This witness further stated that he reported the accident to police vide F.I.R. Exhibit-1. The appellant himself got examined as NAW-1. wherein he admitted that he is owner of jeep No. RJF 4965. He also admitted that on 9-9-1983, he was in possession of the said jeep and while driving the jeep on the very day in Bhilwara near to ITI no accident was caused by him. On being cross-examined he admitted that he purchased the said jeep from respondent No. 3 but could not disclose the date of purchase. He also admitted that on 9-9-1983, he was in possession of the said jeep and while driving the jeep on the very day in Bhilwara near to ITI no accident was caused by him. On being cross-examined he admitted that he purchased the said jeep from respondent No. 3 but could not disclose the date of purchase. He also admitted that after the accident, the jeep was seized by police and he filed a sale letter before the Criminal Court on the basis of which he sought release of the jeep. He also admitted Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4 having been executed by him and in his own signature marked A to B. The appellant further admitted that he himself used to drive the said jeep since the day he purchased it. He in unequivocal term admitted that the said jeep was purchased by him a year prior to the date of the accident and it was seized by police in relation to the accident in question. Exhibit A-2 is an application filed by the appellant under Section 457 Cr. P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bhilwara seeking interim custody of the jeep during the pendency of the criminal case filed against him wherein he admitted that he is owner of the jeep. He further relied on a sale letter issued by respondent No. 3 Surendra Kumar in his favour. Exhibit-A4 is an affidavit filed by the appellant wherein it is stated that the said jeep was seized by police, which was purchased by the appellant from respondent No. 3 Surendra Kumar. In the affidavit which was filed by the appellant, there is mention of the sale letter executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of appellant. He further stated in the affidavit that he is sole owner (Tanha Malik) of the said jeep. The Tribunal on appreciation of entire material noticed above reached to the conclusion that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said jeep by the appellant and at the relevant time, the appellant was the sole-owner of the jeep. Now the appellant had made an unsuccessful attempt to make out a case that since name of the appellant had not been recorded in the record of the registering authority, therefore respondent No. 3 in whose favour the registration stands in only person. Now the appellant had made an unsuccessful attempt to make out a case that since name of the appellant had not been recorded in the record of the registering authority, therefore respondent No. 3 in whose favour the registration stands in only person. who is owner of the jeep which caused the said accident. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent in this regard is that there is overwhelming evidence on record, which further gets strengthened from the admission made by the appellant himself in his written statement as also by the documents Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4. Before the Tribunal the appellant has filed the affidavit Exhibit A-4 in which also he admitted himself to be sole owner. In the statement on oath before the Tribunal he further admitted that he was the owner of the jeep on the date of the accident and he purchased the jeep a year prior to the date of the accident. 9. Under these circumstances, merely because the name of the appellant as owner had not been changed in the record of the registering authority i.e. District Transport Office (D.T.O.) or R. T. O. it cannot be said to be a ground to escape from the liability. The transfer of the jeep in question is governed by provision of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, which provides that sale is complete as soon as delivery of the goods is made on payment of price. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, AIR 1977 Raj. 121 , held that the sale of a motor vehicle is not governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act but it being a moveable property was to be governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. It was further held that the endorsement of the transfer in the records of the Registering Authority is not a condition precedent to the transfer nor does it deal with the legality or validity of the transfer which must be determined by other provisions of the law. The Division Bench further held that for the purposes of awarding compensation it is the real owner who should be found out by the Court on the facts of each case. 10. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. The Division Bench further held that for the purposes of awarding compensation it is the real owner who should be found out by the Court on the facts of each case. 10. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P. M. alias Thankachan, 2001 AIR SCW 3910. AIR 2001 SC 3939 , the question came up for consideration was that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the vehicle, merely because the name had not been changed in the records of the R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle has not been transferred. This was the contention raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. It was further held that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. 11. Keeping in view the evidence available on record and the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that in the instant case the appellant is liable for the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Rajendra Sharda as on the relevant date of the accident he was driving the jeep rashly and negligently as driver cum owner, which caused the accident, therefore, no error can be found with the findings recorded by the tribunal holding the appellant liable for the compensation. 12. Next comes the question of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. From the evidence it is established that the deceased was a young person of 22 years and was a student of M. Corn (Final Yr.). The claimants came out with a case that he was earning Rs. 400/- per month. as he was part-time worker of Rajasthan Silk Mill. This fact has been established by statement of AW-1 Vallabh Sarda, who stated that his son was in the employment of Rajasthan Silk Factory and was earning Rs. 450-500/- per month. He further stated that his son had passed all academic examination by 1st Division. This witness was not cross-examined. 13. as he was part-time worker of Rajasthan Silk Mill. This fact has been established by statement of AW-1 Vallabh Sarda, who stated that his son was in the employment of Rajasthan Silk Factory and was earning Rs. 450-500/- per month. He further stated that his son had passed all academic examination by 1st Division. This witness was not cross-examined. 13. The Tribunal failed to take into account future prospects of the deceased, which is evident from the evidence available on record. In General Manager Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACC CJ 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future prospects and advancement in life and career should be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. In that case the deceased had monthly income of Rs. 1,032/- and for the purpose of computation of the compensation, the income was determined at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in the instant case, if the income of the deceased is taken to be @ Rs. 800/- per month, then contribution to the claimants can safely be determined to be Rs. 500/- per month. As such, annual contribution comes to Rs. 6,000/-. This amount further needs to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier of annual purchase factor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susamma Thoma's case (supra) held that choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher). 14. In the instant case, the deceased was 22 years of age and the age of the claimants is 40 and 43 respectively. Thus, the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of age of parents which is higher. In the age group of 40 to 45 years, appropriate multiplier is 15 years purchase factor. 15. The second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act can be taken as guide for the purpose of selection of multiplier, which provides the multiplier of 15 years for the age group of 40 and 45 years. In the instant case, age of the mother of the deceased is shown to be 40 and father 43. Thus, appropriate multiplier comes to 15 years purchase factor. 16. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which in my opinion cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, total compensation works out to Rs. 6,000 x 15 = Rs. 90,000/-. In the instant case, age of the mother of the deceased is shown to be 40 and father 43. Thus, appropriate multiplier comes to 15 years purchase factor. 16. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which in my opinion cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, total compensation works out to Rs. 6,000 x 15 = Rs. 90,000/-. The Tribunal further award Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and mental agony etc, which is just and proper. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation is either too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case, the age of the deceased is 22 years and compensation of Rs. 46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low and, therefore, needs to be enhanced. 17. No other point was pressed. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly it fails and is dismissed. However, the cross-objection is allowed to the extent that the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 46,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00 /-. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application till realisation. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******