Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The appeals are by registered owner, who claims that he had transferred the vehicle already to the 5th respondent and therefore, the award could not have been passed against him. Transfer of a vehicle could take place by delivery and registration of the vehicle itself will be only evidence of such transfer and not a document of transfer itself. However, if a claim emanated from a third party, there will be nothing wrong about a Tribunal passing an order against a registered owner and also provide a right of recovery against the subsequent purchaser who is arrayed as a party. The duty to satisfy a claim by registered owner was laid down authoritatively by the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 159 (S.C.):20Q1(8) S.C.C. 748 and this decision was also cited by the Honble Supreme Court in Pushpa @ Leela and others v. Shakuntala and others,- 2011(2) S.C.C. 240. The subsequent purchaser-5th respondent is already a party and the appellant will not be driven to a separate suit for securing a right of recovery of the amount from the subsequent purchaser. It is clarified here that the recovery rights provided by the award shall be enforced in execution after satisfying the claim of the third party. 2. Subject to this observation, the appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.