Judgment Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.11.2009, passed by the learned Ex-Officio Member, M.A.C.T. Latur, the legal heirs of original respondent No.2 Babu Tukaram Gute, have preferred this first appeal. Babu has died during pendency of the petition before the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. Latur, therefore, they contested the petition. 3. The main controversy involved in the present appeal, is as to whether deceased original respondent No.2 Babu has transferred the motor cycle involved in the accident to original respondent No.3 Balaji Baburao Gundre, preceding two years of the accident. It is an admitted fact that original respondent No.1 Ganpati Bhanudas Sampate was driving the motorcycle. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the driver of the motorcycle, the appellant or the original owner of the motorcycle and the alleged transferee of the motorcycle. 4. The accident in question has occurred on 23.6.2002. Deceased Rajpal, whose legal representatives have filed claim petition and are now respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein. The claimants had contended that while the deceased was proceeding on his own motorcycle, another motorcycle driven by the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing No.MH-24-5341 gave a dash to the motorcycle of deceased near Toll Naka on Ahmedpur-Nanded road. It appears that the motorcycle was not insured. In the circumstances, the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the driver Ganpati, original owner Babu. Thereafter, in view of the pleadings in the written statement of original owner Babu, that he had already transferred the motorcycle in question preceding to two years of the accident, said Balaji came to be added as respondent to the claim petition. 5. The written statement of driver Ganpati shows that he had denied that there was any such transfer of the motorcycle, though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to interpret the pleading in this regard in a different way, with which we would deal later on. 6. The alleged transferee, though appeared in the proceeding, did not file his written statement and as such, the claim petition proceeded without his written statement. 7. Before the Tribunal, the original sale deed of the motorcycle was placed at Exh.105, as proved by the attesting witness viz. Eknath Karad. 6. The alleged transferee, though appeared in the proceeding, did not file his written statement and as such, the claim petition proceeded without his written statement. 7. Before the Tribunal, the original sale deed of the motorcycle was placed at Exh.105, as proved by the attesting witness viz. Eknath Karad. Besides this, below the list of documents at Exh.30, statement of pillion rider of the offending vehicle viz. Apparao Rathod, which claimed to have been recorded by the Police during the investigation, was also pressed into service. From the side of the appellants, one of the legal representatives entered into the witness box and deposed on the line of the defence. Shriram, who is appellant No.4, as a legal representative of deceased respondent-appellant, though was cross examined, by the learned counsel for the claimants, learned counsel for the driver declined to cross examine him. The alleged transferee of the motorcycle though was a party to the claim petition, however, did not contest. Same was the case when the attesting witness to the sale deed at Exh.105 i.e. R.W. No.2 Eknath was examined. At that time, the counsel for the driver was absent. 8. The learned Member of the tribunal drawn an adverse inference against deceased respondent Babu. It is an admitted fact that deceased was a Police head constable and finding that though the accident, as per his contention, had occurred two years after the transfer of the motorcycle, he had not taken any care to see that the entries are taken with the Regional Transport Office for transfer of the motorcycle in name of the registered owner. It was found as one of the factor against his case of transfer. The next fact, that was adverted by the learned Tribunal, was that the sale deed at Exh.105 shows that the stamp paper was purchased by a stranger i.e. neither by deceased-owner Babu nor the alleged transferee Balaji. Lastly, the learned Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the judgment of Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) and concluded that the registered owner shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 9. The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the said decision, have filed the present Appeal. 10. Mr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) and concluded that the registered owner shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 9. The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the said decision, have filed the present Appeal. 10. Mr. Lomte, learned counsel for the appellants submitted as under:- That the learned Member did not appreciate the evidence on record in right spirit and failed to consider that while the driver has impliedly admitted in his pleading that the motorcycle was already transferred, he even refused to cross examine one of the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant, as well as the attesting witness to the sale deed and further the alleged transferee failed to put any pleading and in the circumstances, the learned Member ought to have held that the motorcycle was already transferred to the alleged transferee two years preceding the accident. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Gude, learned counsel h/f Mr. Urgunde, learned counsel for the alleged transferee and driver Balaji, submitted that the learned Member has rightly placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose (Supra). He further submitted that the alleged transferee had not filed any written statement and therefore, he went undefended in the case. 12. Mr. J.R. Patil, learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the clear pronouncement from the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose (Supra). He further supports the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding drawing of an adverse inference on the basis of vast difference between the date of the alleged transfer and the date of the accident which has created a doubt about sale deed at Exh.105. 13. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my consideration;- i) Whether the learned Member has arrived at a right conclusion that the deceased Babu Tukaram Gute i.e. predecessor of the present appellants was owner in fact, as well as in law, as regards the motorcycle involved in the accident on the date of the accident? My answer to above point is in the affirmative and the Appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs, for the following reasons. REASONS:- 14. My answer to above point is in the affirmative and the Appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs, for the following reasons. REASONS:- 14. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is clear that the alleged transferee came to be added as a party in view of the written statement filed by the predecessor of the present appellants, as naturally the claimants would have no knowledge about the fact that the motorcycle was transferred by the predecessor of the appellants i.e. the owner of the motorcycle in view of absence of entry in this regard with the Regional Transport Office. It is an admitted fact that the predecessor of the appellants continued to be the registered owner of the motorcycle with the Regional Transport Office. 15. The question in the present case, is not merely of filing of any written statement by the alleged transferee or any attempt or non attempt made by the driver of the motorcycle to refute any of the claim by Babu-the predecessor of the present appellants, as the claimants were interested in getting their claim settled against the owner of the motorcycle. 16. The decision in the claim petition, as regards the liability to pay the compensation would not be dependent on the outcome of the dispute between the original owner or the alleged transferee, but it was merely a question as to who would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in case they succeeded (and in fact they succeeded) to show that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle and they have sustained the loss, as alleged by them. 17. The question, therefore, in the present Appeal, is limited to the dispute between the appellants and the alleged transferee. 18. Mr. Lomte learned counsel submits that the pleadings of the driver would show that he has not denied that the motorcycle was already transferred preceding the date of accident. 19. The original claimants, in their petition, in paragraph No.5 has pleaded that the driver was driving the motorcycle while in the employment of the predecessor of the appellants i.e. original owner. Lomte learned counsel submits that the pleadings of the driver would show that he has not denied that the motorcycle was already transferred preceding the date of accident. 19. The original claimants, in their petition, in paragraph No.5 has pleaded that the driver was driving the motorcycle while in the employment of the predecessor of the appellants i.e. original owner. It was further averred that the predecessor of the appellants was the owner of the said Rajdoot motorcycle and thus the driver as well as the predecessor of the appellants were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 20. In reply to this contention, the driver in paragraph No.11 of his written statement, has pleaded that the contents of this paragraph are partly true and remaining are denied. He admitted that on the date of accident, respondent No.2 i.e. predecessor of the appellants was owner of Rajdoot motorcycle "as per record" and remaining contentions in the said paragraph were denied. 21. Mr. Lomte, learned counsel interprets this pleading, as an admission from the side of the driver that the predecessor of the appellants was merely the owner on record, while the alleged transferee was in fact the owner of the same. 22. I am afraid, the interpretation put forth by Mr. Lomte in this regard is not correct. The driver, did not, in clear terms, in any way, pleaded that the motorcycle was transferred by the owner at any point of time. What he pleaded was "as per the record," the predecessor of the appellants i.e. owner of the motorcycle was owner as per the record. Any addition to his pleadings would not be permissible. Further this admission is not adverse to his interest, as admittedly, he was driving the motorcycle at the relevant time. Therefore, whoever may be the master, the said master would be vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in case his rash and negligent driving is proved. 23. This leads me to find out the fact as to whether, in fact, the motorcycle was sold preceding two years of the accident to the alleged transferee. The first and foremost fact to be borne in mind is that deceased Babu i.e. predecessor of the present appellants i.e. original owner of the motorcycle was working as a Head Constable in the Police Department at Latur at the relevant time. The first and foremost fact to be borne in mind is that deceased Babu i.e. predecessor of the present appellants i.e. original owner of the motorcycle was working as a Head Constable in the Police Department at Latur at the relevant time. The de-facto transaction has taken place preceding to two years of the accident at Latur itself and R.T.O. Latur is concerned with the transfer of the said motorcycle. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly drawn an adverse inference, when it observed that the predecessor of the appellants being in Police department would have very well seen that during the long period of two years the transfer of ownership of the vehicle is registered. 24. The next finding of the learned Tribunal regarding genuineness of the sale deed at Exh.105 is also corroborated by the facts on record. Exh.105 shows that the stamp, on which the sale deed is written, was purchased by one Bhagwan Limbaji Balane on 28.10.2002. Said Bhagwan was neither a party to the transaction nor the attesting witness to the sale deed at Exh.105. In the circumstances, the custody of the stamp with the deceased Babu is doubtful. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has rightly expressed doubt about the genuineness of the said document. The last circumstance is regarding certified copy of the statement of the pillion rider of the offending motorcycle, filed by the predecessor of the present appellants, which is below the list at Exh.30. It was merely a certified copy of the purported statement of the pillion rider viz. Baburao. The said statement was recorded by the Police during the course of the investigation. In the circumstances, though the predecessor of the appellants filed the same, unless and until said Baburao has entered into the witness box, nothing could have been proved in support of the claim of the present appellants. 25. In the circumstances, deceased Babu failed to prove that on the date of the accident, the motorcycle was already sold to the alleged transferee. 26. In the alternative, dealing with the legal aspect, assuming that the predecessor of the appellants had sold the motor cycle to the alleged transferee, we would be required to scan the law on this question. In the circumstances, deceased Babu failed to prove that on the date of the accident, the motorcycle was already sold to the alleged transferee. 26. In the alternative, dealing with the legal aspect, assuming that the predecessor of the appellants had sold the motor cycle to the alleged transferee, we would be required to scan the law on this question. Sub-Section 30 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the "owner" as under :- "(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" Thus, if we go by the definition, it would be clear that owner means a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered subject to condition that if the motor vehicle is subject to i) hire purchase agreement, ii) agreement of lease or iii) agreement of hypothecation, the person, in whose possession the vehicle is under the said agreement, shall be the owner. 27. Admittedly, none of the conditions are in existence in the present case and therefore, if we go merely by the definition, as relied by the learned counsel Mr. Lomte himself, the predecessor of the appellants was the only owner of the motorcycle, in law. 28. Mr. Lomte, however, placed reliance on the following three authorities i) In Kishan Pandurang Kagde Vs. Baldev Singh Gian Singh and Anr, 1977 BCI (0) 65, the Court was dealing with the dispute filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. of handing over the custody of the motor vehicle, which was the subject matter of offence of theft. In those circumstances, it was held that custody shall be handed over to the person who was in actual custody than the person who is shown as the registered owner of the vehicle immediately preceding the alleged theft. On the face of facts, the ratio of the same would not be applicable in the present case. ii) In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. On the face of facts, the ratio of the same would not be applicable in the present case. ii) In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari and others, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 481 , admittedly the facts were that the State Road Transport Corporation had obtained a bus on hire from a private owner. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the State Road Transport Corporation would also be included in the definition of owner. We have already adverted to the ingredients of the definition of owner, as is put in sub-Section 30 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the circumstances, the State Road Transport Corporation would also be deemed owner in view of the expression given to the term owner who is also in possession of the vehicle under the agreement of hire. In the circumstances, the ratio of the case of Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation (supra) is not applicable in the present case. iii) In the case of Mathew Thankachan Vs. C.G. Manoharan and others, reported in AIR 1998 Kerala 128, the Kerala High court came to the conclusion that the sale of motor vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act and is complete when the consideration is paid and the vehicle is delivered, irrespective of the fact that the sale has been registered with the Registering authority or not. 29. As against this, the other side has relied in Dr. T.V. Jose (Supra). In that case, in paragraph No.10, the Supreme Court dealt with the same issue and observed as under:- "10. 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." 30. Mr. Lomte, learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that in that case the alleged transferee of the motor vehicle i.e. Mr. Roy Thomas was not made a party either before the MACT or the High Court and the original owner had joined said Roy Thomas, as a party only in the appeal before the Supreme Court. In that circumstances, according to Mr. Lomte, the Supreme Court refused to enter into the question of fact by observing that in those appeals the Supreme court cannot and will not go into the question of inter-se liability between the appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. 31. The facts in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose (Supra) before the Supreme Court would show that after the appellant T.V. Jose, the offending car has changed at least three hands till the date on which the accident occurred and Mr. Roy Thomas was the last owner. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed that as to who should be liable to pay the compensation, is a matter between the transferee and transferor and the Supreme Court would not go into that question and the appellant may adopt appropriate proceedings against the alleged transferee in law, if he is entitled to do so. 32. In the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is mainly concerned with the aspect of grant of compensation to the claimants either from the owner and/or from the Insurance Company, in case the vehicle is insured. It may be noted that the law provides the contract with the Insurance Company to be a compulsory contract, yet on number of occasions, the owners of the motor vehicle flout the provisions detrimental to their own interest, resulting into the situation that had arisen in the present case. It may be noted that the law provides the contract with the Insurance Company to be a compulsory contract, yet on number of occasions, the owners of the motor vehicle flout the provisions detrimental to their own interest, resulting into the situation that had arisen in the present case. This fact cannot exclude the owner from their liability to pay the compensation. 33. In the circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed without any order to costs. 34. The amount of Rs.1,49,000/-deposited by the appellants in this Court be remitted to the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Latur for proper disbursement.