JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—In an accident involving Maruti Van No. HP-02-5013 which took place on 22.10.1996 at about 9.30 p.m. at Gasaur, respondent No.1, Amar Chand, sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting into cent per cent permanent physical disability. 2. Respondent No.1 approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, the Tribunal) under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was averred that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver Sanju Kumar (respondent No.3). Respondent No.1 pleaded that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger. Respondent No.2 Roshan Lai is alleged to be the owner and the appellant is alleged to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Respondents No.2 and 3, while resisting the petition pleaded that the offending vehicle was owned by the respondent No.1 himself having purchased the same from the previous owner, that is, respondent No.1 on the day of accident itself vide agreement dated 22.10.1996. They specifically denied that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3 or that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving on his part. 4. The appellant denied the accident for want of knowledge. It denied its liability by pleading that the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties : 1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries in Maruti Van No. HP-02-5013 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2, if so its effect ? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the driver was not having valid licence? OPR-3. 4. Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal under issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver respondent No.3. It further held respondent No. 2 to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Under Issue No.2 respondent No.1 was held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 5,32,000/-. While deciding issue No.3 against the appellant it was held that the driver respondent No.3 was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Resultantly an award for Rs. It further held respondent No. 2 to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Under Issue No.2 respondent No.1 was held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 5,32,000/-. While deciding issue No.3 against the appellant it was held that the driver respondent No.3 was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Resultantly an award for Rs. 5,32,000/- was made in favour of the respondent No.1 and against respondents No.2 and 3 and the appellant. The appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle was called upon to pay the amount of compensation awarded. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award dated 10.11.1999 of the learned Tribunal, the appellant is before this court by way of the present appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. The only point raised in the present appeal is that since the offending vehicle stood sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, the title in goods had passed to respondent No.1 and since the respondent No.1 was himself the owner of the offending vehicle, the claim petition by him was not maintainable. 9. There is no denying that vide agreement Ex. DA dated 22.10.1996 respondent No.1 had purchased the offending vehicle from respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/-. Respondent No.1 while appearing as his own witness as PW 3 has admitted that after the execution of the agreement Ex. DA the offending vehicle was delivered to him by respondent No.2 at about 8.30 p.m. As stated above, the accident took place at about 9.30 p.m. Thus; the vehicle stood delivered to respondent No.1 before the accident. 10. It was contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that since only a part payment towards sale consideration of the vehicle was made and the registration certificate continued in the name of respondent No.2, there was no transfer of ownership in favour of respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle. 11. There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.1. The vehicle being a movable property, its sale would be governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 19 thereof provides:— "19. 11. There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.1. The vehicle being a movable property, its sale would be governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 19 thereof provides:— "19. Property passes when intended to pass,—(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend to be transferred. (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer." Section 20 of the said Act further provides :— "20. Specific goods in a deliverable state.—Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of goods, or both, is postponed." 12. Ex. DA is the agreement admittedly arrived at between the respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 on 22.10.1996 regarding the sale of the offending vehicle. In such agreement respondent No. 1 is referred to as the "Second Party" while respondent No.2 has been described as the "First Party". Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the said agreement, which are material for the present case, read :— "1. That the first party has sold his Maruti Van Registration No. HP-02/5013, bearing chasis No. 856929, Engine No. 567482, Model-1990 to the Second Party for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lac Fifteen Thousand) only. 2. That the second party has paid a partly payment of Rs. 40,000 out of the total consideration amount on today, i.e., 22.10.1996 and the possession of the said vehicle has been handed over to the second party by the first party. 3. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lac Fifteen Thousand) only. 2. That the second party has paid a partly payment of Rs. 40,000 out of the total consideration amount on today, i.e., 22.10.1996 and the possession of the said vehicle has been handed over to the second party by the first party. 3. That hereinafter second party will be responsible for all kinds of taxes, challans and dues in respect of the said vehicle and previous, if any will be paid by the first party." (Emphasis supplied) 13. A bare reading of the above clauses leaves no doubt that the parties to the agreement intended that the ownership of the vehicle was to pass immediately upon delivery of the vehicle. 14. In Sumathy v. Raghavan [1996(2) Ker. L.T 1018], it has been held by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court that if the sale of the vehicle is complete according to the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the transferee becomes the owner of the vehicle, even if there is no mutation in the registration certificate in favour of the transferee. 15. In Alavi v. Vehyudhan, 1990 (1) ACC 24, it was held by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court that transfer of Registration is not at all necessary for passing of the title under Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, although the registration still stood in the name of original owner but the vehicle has been transferred to the present owner and possession thereof handed over before the accident, the purchaser would be considered as owner of the vehicle for the purpose of liability of payment of compensation. 16. On somewhat similar facts a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maheshwari and others, 1998(2) ACJ 1266, has held the transferee to have become the owner of the vehicle on the same having been delivered and handed over to him by the transferor. 17. As stated above, the respondent No.1 while appearing as PW 3 has admitted the agreement Ex. DA and the purchase of the vehicle by him. He also admitted that the possession of the vehicle was handed over to him by respondent No.2. 18. In addition to the above there is another evidence in the form of document Ex. 17. As stated above, the respondent No.1 while appearing as PW 3 has admitted the agreement Ex. DA and the purchase of the vehicle by him. He also admitted that the possession of the vehicle was handed over to him by respondent No.2. 18. In addition to the above there is another evidence in the form of document Ex. R-l executed by respondent No.1 on 31.10.1996 wherein he has admitted to the following facts :— (a) he had purchased the offending vehicle from respondent No.2; (b) he had received the delivery of the vehicle alongwith all the relevant documents partaining to the vehicle. (c) after taking delivery of the vehicle he was returning to home in the said vehicle and he was himself driving the vehicle and that on the way it met with an accident. 19. In the face of the above legal position and the evidence on the record, the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in holding the respondent No. 2 to be owner of the vehicle and that it was being driven by respondent No.3 at the relevant time. 20. Since the respondent No.1 was himself the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and the accident was caused due to his own rash and negligent driving the petition for compensation by him was not maintainable and he is not entitled to any compensation either from respondents No. 2 and 3 or from the appellant. 21. Even if it be assumed that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3 as alleged by respondent No.1, even then he is not entitled to any compensation since being the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.3 must be deemed to have been driving the vehicle for and on his behalf. 22. As a result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 10.11.1999 of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is dismissed. 23. Let the amount deposited by the appellant under the award in this court alongwith interest accruing due, if any, be refunded to the appellant. By remitting the same to its bank account. No orders as to costs. Appeal allowed. -