JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-MACT(III), Sonepur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 45/14 of 2001-2004, wherein the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 1. Appellant's case is that respondent No. 1 claimed compensation before the Tribunal u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of her husband Meghu Dharua in a vehicular accident. As per the claim petition filed by the respondents, Meghu Dharua was working as a field servant under the appellant. On 04.08.2000 at about 2 P.M., while the deceased was working in the paddy field of the appellant, the tractor bearing Registration No. OIS 8366 belonging to the appellant, which was ploughing the field, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, deceased-Meghu Dharua met with the accident and died instantaneously. At the time of death, the deceased Meghu Dharua was getting Rs. 1,000/- per month. The appellant was the registered owner of the offending tractor. The deceased was the sole earning member of the family. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondents on the grounds inter alia that he was not the registered owner of the offending tractor and the deceased was neither his field servant nor was working at the relevant time in his field. Due to previous enmity, a false case was foisted and respondent No. 1 lodged F.I.R. which was registered as Binka P.S. Case No. 25 of 2000 in which final report was submitted as the alleged occurrence was found to be false. 2. Learned Tribunal has framed following four issues: 1) Whether the claim petition is maintainable ? 2) Whether the deceased Meghu Dharua died due to accident caused by tractor bearing registration No. OIS-8366? 3) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle ? 4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what extent ? 3. During trial before the learned A.D.J.-cum-M.A.C.T.-III, Sonepur as many as four witnesses were examined by the claimant-respondents and Exts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were proved by the claimants. On behalf of the appellant, three witnesses were examined and Exts. A, B and C were proved. 4. 3. During trial before the learned A.D.J.-cum-M.A.C.T.-III, Sonepur as many as four witnesses were examined by the claimant-respondents and Exts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were proved by the claimants. On behalf of the appellant, three witnesses were examined and Exts. A, B and C were proved. 4. Learned Tribunal taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest in favour of respondent No. 1 to be paid within three months by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is against the evidence available on record. The evidence of O.P. Ws. 1 to 3 has not been given due consideration so also the documentary evidence to establish that appellant was not the owner of the tractor in question. Without any evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant was the registered owner of the tractor. The documentary evidence filed by the respondents do not refer to any document brought from the registering authority to indicate ownership of the tractor. Xerox copy of the affidavit and application with Form No. 29 of the appellant have been exhibited to show ownership of the tractor. The documents such as, Exts. 1 to 8, do not prove that the appellant was the owner of the tractor in question. Xerox copy of the application and affidavit, even if, these are taken to be true, in the absence of registration book and other documents from the concerned registering authority, should not have been considered as sufficient to hold that the offending tractor belonged to the appellant. The Tribunal should have examined Exts. A, B and C and should have held that the appellant was not the owner of the tractor in the absence of post-mortem or any other document showing death of the deceased. The Tribunal is wrong in saying that the appellant was liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pushpa @ Leela and Others Vs. Shakuntala and Others, Vinod Kumar and Another Vs. Nirmala Devi and Another, 6. Mr. The Tribunal is wrong in saying that the appellant was liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pushpa @ Leela and Others Vs. Shakuntala and Others, Vinod Kumar and Another Vs. Nirmala Devi and Another, 6. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondents submitted that the sole question to be determined is as to whether without transfer of ownership of the tractor in the name of the appellant by necessary entry in Registration Book, the award passed by the learned Tribunal saddling the liability on the appellant for payment of awarded amount is legally sustainable. Further referring to Section 168 of the M.V. Act, Mr. Mishra submitted that the compensation amount shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or jointly and severally by all or any of them, as the case may be. Therefore, it is submitted that Section 168 of the M.V. Act refers to owner not registered owner. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tulasi Sahukar vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2010 (1) OLR 795 , Mr. Mishra submitted that the transfer of goods (movable) takes place as per the provision of the Sale of Goods Act. Chapter-IV of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with Registration of Motor Vehicle which also includes the provision for change of ownership. Section 39 of the Act deals with the necessity of registration of the vehicle. It is further submitted that registration is required in respect of the vehicle but not in respect of the owner. In the Registration Book, the name of the owner is entered. Therefore, the "Owner" and "Registered Owner" are two different things. 7. Mr. Mishra further submitted that in the instant case, the offending vehicle was purchased by the appellant and he was managing the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. In the Registration Book, the name of the owner is entered. Therefore, the "Owner" and "Registered Owner" are two different things. 7. Mr. Mishra further submitted that in the instant case, the offending vehicle was purchased by the appellant and he was managing the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. From the report of the Superintendent of Police, it appears that the deceased was working as a labourer under the appellant and on the date of occurrence, the regular driver of the appellant was absent and the appellant directed the deceased to drive the tractor and while the deceased was driving the vehicle overturned on the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. 8. Further placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Finance Co. Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma and Others Mr. Mishra submitted that the owner in actual possession of the vehicle is the person liable to pay the compensation and not always the "Registered Owner". 9. On the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the appellant is the owner of the offending tractor so as to be liable to pay amount of compensation u/s 168 of the M.V. Act, even though transfer of ownership has not been effected in the R.C. Book in the name of the appellant. 10. The learned Tribunal relying on oral evidence of the witnesses and a letter addressed by the appellant to R.T.O., Bargarh which was marked as Ext. 4 and wherein it was stated that the appellant-Benudhar Padhan had purchased the tractor and trolly bearing Registration Nos. OIS-8366 and O.R.R. 8097 from Narendra Pradhan, Surendra Pradhan and Birendra Pradhan, has come to the conclusion that the appellant-Benudhar Padhan is owner of the vehicle and liable to pay compensation. The appellant in his letter had sought permission from the RTO, Bargarh to pay tax and penalty in three installments. Though respondents have failed to produce the R.C. book in respect of the offending vehicle, but they have produced xerox copies of Form No. 29 of Notice of Transfer of ownership (Ext. 5). Ext. 6 is Form, Part-II for use of the transferee, Ext. 7 and the affidavit sworn before the Notary Public, Bargarh (Ext. 8) shows that ownership of the offending vehicle has been transferred to B. Pradhan. 5). Ext. 6 is Form, Part-II for use of the transferee, Ext. 7 and the affidavit sworn before the Notary Public, Bargarh (Ext. 8) shows that ownership of the offending vehicle has been transferred to B. Pradhan. Apart from the documents, evidence of the witnesses shows that the appellant is the owner of the offending tractor. 11. From the above finding of the learned Tribunal, it transpires that the name of the appellant has not been entered in R.C. Book issued by the Registering Authority in respect of the vehicle in question. However, the evidence shows that ownership of the vehicle in question has been transferred to the appellant. On this backdrop, a question arises as to whether the liability to pay compensation can be fastened on the appellant. 12. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with "Award of Claims Tribunal". The said section inter alia provides that in making award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. The said provision nowhere provides that award is to be passed against the "Registered Owner". Transfer of ownership in respect of goods (moveable) takes place from the date of sale when the transferee purchases the vehicle. Registration certificate does not confer title. In other words, change of entry in the registration certificate does not convey the ownership. Transfer of ownership of goods (moveable) is governed by the provision of Sale of Goods Act or the Law of Succession, as the case may be. 13. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with Registration of Motor Vehicle which also includes the provision for change of ownership. Section 39 of the Act, 1988 deals with "Necessity of Registration". According to Section 39, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the law and the Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed to the prescribed manner. Therefore, registration has nothing to do with the change of ownership. Therefore, registration has nothing to do with the change of ownership. Section 50 deals with change of ownership of vehicle. As per said provision, the registration of vehicle is the primary requirement under the M.V. Act. Name of the owner is reflected in the R.C. Book solely for the purpose that in case of violation of any of the provision, the right person can be prosecuted against. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Finance Co (supra), held as under: 15. An application for payment of compensation is filed before the Tribunal constituted u/s 165 of the Act for adjudicating upon the claim for compensation in respect of accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Use of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compensation. Ordinarily if driver of the vehicle would use the same, he remains in possession or control thereof. Owner of the vehicle, although may not have anything to do with the use of vehicle at the time of the accident, actually he may be held to be constructively liable as the employer of the driver. What is, therefore, essential for passing an award is to find out the liabilities of the persons who are involved in the use of the vehicle or the persons who are vicariously liable. The insurance company becomes a necessary party to such claims as in the event the owner of the vehicle is found to be liable, it would have to reimburse the owner inasmuch as a vehicle is compulsorily insurable so far as a third party is concerned, as contemplated u/s 147 thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role. 16. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari where the owner of a vehicle rented the bus to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It met with an accident. Despite the fact that the driver of the bus was an employee of the registered owner of the vehicle, it was held: (SCC p. 488, para 17) 17. ... It met with an accident. Despite the fact that the driver of the bus was an employee of the registered owner of the vehicle, it was held: (SCC p. 488, para 17) 17. ... Driver of the bus, even though an employee of the owner, was at the relevant time performing his duties under the order and command of the conductor of RSRTC for operation of the bus. So far as the passengers of the ill-fated bus are concerned, their privity of contract was only with RSRTC to whom they had paid the fare for traveling in that bus and their safety therefore became the responsibility of RSRTC while traveling in the bus. They had no privity of contract with Shri Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus at all. Had it been a case only of transfer of services of the driver and not of transfer of control of the driver from the owner to RSRTC, the matter may have been somewhat different. But on facts in this case and in view of Conditions 4 to 7 of the agreement (supra), RSRTC must be held to be vicariously liable for the tort committed by the driver while plying the bus under contract of RSRTC. The general proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer, that is, the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible vicariously for the tort committed by the employee concerned during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, is a rebuttable presumption. If the original employer is able to establish that when the servant was lent, the effective control over him was also transferred to the hirer, the original owner can avoid his liability and the temporary employer or the hirer, as the case may be, must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the employee concerned in the course of his employment while under the command and control of the hirer notwithstanding the fact that the driver would continue to be on the payroll of the original owner. The proposition based on the general principle as noticed above is adequately rebutted in this case not only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties but also on the basis of Conditions 6 to 7 (supra), which go to show that the owner had not merely transferred the services of the driver to RSRTC but actual control and the driver was to act under the instructions, control and command of the conductor and other officers of RSRTC." (Emphasis in original) 17. The question again came up for consideration recently before this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi. This Court in that case was dealing with a matter where the vehicle in question was requisitioned by the State Government and while holding that the owner of the vehicle would not be liable it was opined: (SCC p. 417, para 10) 10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondents 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owners of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act. A vehicle is requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefore in terms of the Act but he cannot not (sic) exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. In so opining the Court followed Kailash Nath Kothari. 18. The legal principles as noticed hereinbefore, clearly show that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 15. In view of the above settled legal proposition, this Court is of the view that the appellant is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) to the claimants. 16. In Pushpa alias Leela and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that registered owner is also equally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Nowhere, it is stated that transferee shall not be liable to pay the compensation amount. In the instant case, the transferee is made a party. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the appellant is of no help to him. 17. In the fact situation, the appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) to the claimant-respondents as directed by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal is without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed