JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the award dated 28.4.2006 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MACT Claim Case No.203/2005 (329/2003) awarded compensation Rs.9,48,560/-. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the vehicle in question though was registered in the name of the appellant but this vehicle was sold by he appellant to one Om Prakash and Om Prakash surrendered the vehicle to the manufacturer company of the tractor i.e. Swaraj Company and the said Swaraj company sold the said tractor by auction to the respondent no.5, therefore, for all purposes, the respondent no.5 was Bhanwar Lal. v. Smt. Kamod Kanwar & Ors. the owner of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that the tractor in question with whom the motorcycle of the deceased collided, was covering 6 feet road leaving behind 12 feet of road area, therefore, it is a clear case of negligence of the motorcycle driver who collided his motorcycle with the stationary truck and died. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant could not have been held liable because of the reason that the deceased could have taken reasonable care and at the most, it could be a case of contributory negligence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as the appellant is a registered owner, this fact is not in dispute and for rest of the plea taken by the appellant that the vehicle was sold to one other person and he surrendered the vehicle to the company and which was auctioned and then purchased from the company, the appellant did not produce any evidence. That plea taken by the appellant is not supported by evidence. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question had no indication that it was lying stationary on road and it was difficult to see that the vehicle is moving forward or backward. Learned counsel for the Bhanwar Lal. v. Smt. Kamod Kanwar & Ors. respondents also submitted that the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bela Marya and Ors. reported in 1997 ACJ 304 and after considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal awarded compensation. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. respondents also submitted that the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bela Marya and Ors. reported in 1997 ACJ 304 and after considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal awarded compensation. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. So far as the appellant is concerned, he is the registered owner. The appellant failed to prove that he sold the vehicle to other person and even if the respondent no.5 admitted in response to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the vehicle is belonging to him, even then the registered owner cannot escape his liability and particularly, when the appellant's case is that he sold the vehicle to the other person and other person surrendered it to the company and the company sold to another person and that fact must have the documentary evidence and if the story appears to be false, then the admission of the respondent no.5 cannot bound down the claimants who are strangers to the transaction. The tractor had trolly with stone slabs in it and it had no parking light, indicator or reflector. The motorcycle was running in Bhanwar Lal. v. Smt. Kamod Kanwar & Ors. the right side i.e. left side of the road and the driver of the motorcycle was not supposed to travel in the center of the road. The case of the claimants is that the other vehicle came with full light and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to move to the center of the road and he could not have imagined the moving of the tractor. Therefore, it appears that there is a clear negligence in parking the vehicle on the road by the driver of the tractor. It is not the case of the appellant that there was no space near the road where they could not have stopped the vehicle. 7. In view of the above reason, the Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail which I have considered and found that the finding of the tribunal about the total negligence of the driver of the tractor is based on evidence. I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in passing the impugned award. 8. Consequently, this appeal having no merits, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******