JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. The appellant has moved an application for filing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. He has also filed the affidavit along with the said application and has annexed the certificate issued from the office of R.T.O. indicating therein that no application for transfer of the name of the registered owner had been received back by the office of R.T.O. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant of the basis of the aforesaid documents has tried to submit that the application which has been referred to in the impugned judgment for transfer of ownership of the motorcycle had in fact never been filed by the registered owner-Narendra Pal. I do not find any force in this argument. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence before the Tribunal in order to show that no application for transfer of the ownership had been filed by the registered owner-Narendra Pal before the R.T.O. but he had made no efforts to produce either any official from the office of R.T.O. or any other cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. The application is therefore barred by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27-AA of C.P.C. as no due diligence has been observed by the appellant before the Tribunal in order to produce the adequate evidence in support of his case. 3. Thus, the application filed by appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. being without any force is rejected. 4. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 55 of 2002, Smt. Dulari Devi versus Pooran Singh Mehra & others. 5. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimant, are that deceased-Ram Singh, husband of claimant, was employed as Mill Engine Driver in Kichha Sugar Mill. On 7.12.2001 when deceased-Ram Singh was going after finishing his duty, opposite party no. 1 dashed the deceased by driving his motorcycle No. U.P. 04B-2067 rashly and sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries on 10.2.2002 during treatment. The claimant has pleaded that at the time of accident deceased-Ram Singh was 55 years of age and used to get Rs. 5000/- per month as salary from employer-Kichha Sugar Mill. 1 dashed the deceased by driving his motorcycle No. U.P. 04B-2067 rashly and sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries on 10.2.2002 during treatment. The claimant has pleaded that at the time of accident deceased-Ram Singh was 55 years of age and used to get Rs. 5000/- per month as salary from employer-Kichha Sugar Mill. The claimant also claimed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income, mental pain and agony, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cremation of deceased and other religious activities, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant also pleaded that had her husband been alive, he would have got salary till his retirement which she also suffered. The claimant thus claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. 6. Opposite party no. 1-Pooran Singh Mehra filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He denied that he was driving the offending motorcycle No. U.P.04B-2067 and he was the owner of offending motorcycle at the time of accident. He has pleaded that he had neither been the owner of motorcycle in question nor the alleged offending motorcycle had been in his possession. He has further pleaded that when he received summons he enquired from the office of R.T.O. and on inquiry he came to know that motorcycle in question was registered in the name of Narendra Pal. He also took plea that he has falsely been implicated in this case as driver due to enmity with son of deceased-Suresh Kumar. 7. Opposite party no.2-Narendra Pal filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that he sold the vehicle on 4.8.2001 to Harjeet Singh for a sum of Rs.20,500/-. The accident in this case occurred on 7.12.2001 i.e. after more than four months of alleged sale of motorcycle. He has further pleaded that he handed over registration papers and insurance policy etc. to Harjeet Singh and a receipt pertaining to all papers and documents of motorcycle was kept with him in the presence of witnesses-Darshan Lal and Raj Kumar. Therefore, the liability pertaining to motorcycle in question after 4.8.2001 rests upon Harjeet Singh and it is necessary to make Harjeet Singh as party in this case. 8. The opposite party no. 3-Harjeeet Singh/appellant before this Court, filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. Therefore, the liability pertaining to motorcycle in question after 4.8.2001 rests upon Harjeet Singh and it is necessary to make Harjeet Singh as party in this case. 8. The opposite party no. 3-Harjeeet Singh/appellant before this Court, filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that registered owner of offending vehicle on the date of accident was Narendra Pal. He also pleaded that he had neither been the owner of motorcycle in question nor the alleged offending motorcycle had been in his possession. He denied that he purchased the motorcycle in question from Narendra Pal. He has further pleaded that Narendra Pal had mentioned wrong facts in his written statement and he had not issued any receipt for purchase of motorcycle in question, hence, the claim petition filed against him is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimant, payable by opposite party no. 3 – Harjeet Singh, along with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which, claimant shall be entitled to get an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment, on the awarded amount of compensation. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-Harjeet Singh has filed the appeal before this Court. 11. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on the date of accident appellant-Harjeet Singh had neither been the owner of motorcycle in question nor the alleged offending motorcycle had been in his possession. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards pleadings of written statement filed by appellant-Harjeet Singh. 13. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability for payment of compensation has been wrongly fixed by the Tribunal on the shoulder of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards pleadings of written statement filed by appellant-Harjeet Singh. 13. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the liability for payment of compensation has been wrongly fixed by the Tribunal on the shoulder of the appellant. According to his submission, the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident was Narendra Pal not Harjeet Singh-appellant. He has also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act it was burden on the shoulder of the registered owner-Narendra Pal to establish that he had intimated the office of R.T.O. with regard to transfer of ownership of vehicle in question and he had also informed the transferee through registered post. It has also been submitted that the procedure for transfer of ownership is envisaged under Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act and in view of that provision the application for transfer of registered ownership should have been moved in a prescribed proforma. It has further been submitted that whatever the documents have been filed by the registered owner-Narendra Pal before the Tribunal, are photocopies of the sale-deed as well as transfer letter which cannot be read in evidence and the Tribunal has committed illegality by relying those documents. 14. The record reveals that the registered owner-Narendra Pal in his written statement has pleaded that he had already sold the motorcycle to Harjeet Singh-appellant before the date of the accident. Harjeet Singh-appellant has denied this fact in the written statement filed by him. Narendra Pal-registered owner as well as Harjeet Singjh, both were produced before the Tribunal as witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 respectively. Narendra Pal in his deposition has stated that he sold the vehicle on 4.8.2001 to Harjeet Singh for a sum of Rs. 20,500/-. The accident in this case occurred on 7.12.2001 i.e. after more than four months of alleged sale of motorcycle. This witness has also stated that he handed over registration papers and insurance policy to Harjeet Singh. He has further submitted that on 21.9.2001 he had also moved an application before the office of R.T.O. intimating therein that he had already sold the vehicle to Harjeet Singh and now the vehicle is in possession of transferee-Harjeet Singh. This witness has filed paper no. He has further submitted that on 21.9.2001 he had also moved an application before the office of R.T.O. intimating therein that he had already sold the vehicle to Harjeet Singh and now the vehicle is in possession of transferee-Harjeet Singh. This witness has filed paper no. 52-C before the court below which indicates that he had moved an application before the office of R.T.O. He has also filed paper no. 35-C which is a receipt showing that he obtained the form from the office. These documents contain the signature of Narendra Pal as well as his witness-Raj Kumar, who has been produced as DW-2 before the Tribunal. DW-2 Raj Kumar has stated in his deposition that motorcycle was sold to Harjeet Singh by Narendra Pal in his presence and the papers pertaining to motorcycle were handed over by Narendra Pal to Harjeet Singh. Paper no. 52-C which has been filed by registered owner before the court below contains the signature of the official receiving the letter of transfer on 21.9.2001. Therefore, it is quite clear that appellant being transferee of motorcycle was the owner of the offending motorcycle on the date of accident and the motorcycle was in his possession. This fact has been discussed by the Tribunal in detail and all the aspects pertaining to this fact have been considered by the Tribunal. Once the letter for transfer of ownership had already been sent through registered post by Narendra Pal and was received in the office of R.T.O. much prior to the date of accident, then it is presumed that the ownership of alleged offending motorcycle was with Harjeet Singh and he was in possession of that motorcycle. 15. As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that photocopies could not be considered as those copies are not admissible in evidence, I am of the view that this argument does not carry any force. 15. As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that photocopies could not be considered as those copies are not admissible in evidence, I am of the view that this argument does not carry any force. It is a specific case of Harjeet Singh before the Tribunal that he is not owner of the vehicle, therefore, the burden lies on his shoulder to establish this fact that transfer application was not moved by the registered owner before the accident in the office of R.T.O. and whatever the application was moved by the registered owner was either fake or forged but the appellant did not take any steps in this regard and has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence in support of his case before the Tribunal. The appellant has failed to discharge his burden and now at this stage the appellant cannot switch over the burden on the shoulder of previous registered owner i.e. Narendra Pal. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the judgment of this Court given in A.O. No. 106 of 2005, Gurucharan Singh vs. Smt. Mazda Begum & another, decided on 11.03.2008, and has submitted that in case, if the offending vehicle in question is in the name of registered owner on the date of accident it would be liability of the registered owner to pay the awarded amount of compensation. He has also invited my attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case Dr. T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and others, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3910, in which it has been held that “We agree with Mr. Iyer 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. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. However, the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so.” 17. I have gone through the judgment delivered by me as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, but after having carefully scrutinized both the judgments cited above, I am of the view that facts are circumstances in above cited cases are absolutely different and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. I am, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant-Harjeet Singh to pay the awarded amount of compensation being the owner of the offending motorcycle as well as keeping in view this fact that the offending vehicle was in possession of Harjeet Singh on the date of accident. 19. The Tribunal has also considered various aspects in calculating the amount of compensation to be paid in favour of claimant and I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. Cross objection filed by claimant-respondent no. 1 (Smt. Dulari Devi), is also dismissed. 22. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.