JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1402 of 2008, dated 29.12.2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1402/2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, under Sections 140 & 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Pitchaiah Thevar, who died on 01.08.2008 in a motor accident held on 29.07.2008. 3. The said Pitchaiah Thevar was walking towards North at about 8.00 p.m., in Kalakadu - Seramahadevi Road on 29.07.2008. According to the claimants, the 1st respondent was coming from South to North in the said road, in a motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-74-J-1550, at high speed, rashly and negligently, dashed against the said Pitchaiah Thevar nearer to Muppidathi Amman Temple at Keezhkaruvelankulm and caused severe head injuries. He was immediately taken to 'Jebasekaran Private Hospital' at wherein, he died on 01.08.2008, due to injuries caused in the said accident. 4. An FIR was registered in Crime No.152 of 2008, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC., by the Kalakadu Police Station, against the first respondent in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent is alleged to be the owner of the said motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-74-J-1550, which involved in the accident. The said motor cycle was purchased by the 2nd respondent from one 'Dove Finance Limited', Vadachery, Nagercoil, on hire purchase agreement and the said Finance Company was later on named as 'First India Credit Ltd.,' and thereafter changed in the name of 'Fullerton India Credit Ltd', who is the appellant in this appeal. The 3rd respondent is a subsequent purchaser of the said motor cycle, after the accident. 5. The said motor cycle, which involved in the accident, had a little story of its own that actually gives rise to the question set out at the beginning of the Judgment. The 3rd respondent is a subsequent purchaser of the said motor cycle, after the accident. 5. The said motor cycle, which involved in the accident, had a little story of its own that actually gives rise to the question set out at the beginning of the Judgment. It earlier belonged to the said 'Dove Finance Ltd.’ at Vadachery, Nagercoil, which sold it and delivered to the 2nd respondent on hire purchase agreement and the said finance company seized the motor cycle from the 2nd respondent on 17.08.2005, for non-payment of dues and took possession from him and sold it to one Nelson, proprietor of 'Rathna Auto Consultant', Nagercoil, on 31.08.2005, which in turn, sold it to one Chelladurai, proprietor of 'R.J Auto Consultant' on 25.09.2005, which was again sold to 'Rathna Auto Consultant', which in turn, sold to one John Antony, Kalakadu on 17.11.2005. Therefore, after the said motor cycle was purchased from the said John Antony by Brites on 04.04.2006, who in turn sold it to one Pushparaj, Karungal Kozhikodu on 30.05.2006 and lastly the said motor cycle was purchased by the 4th respondent in the claim petition, who got the vehicle to be transferred the vehicle in his name on 27.08.2009. 6. It is admitted that Dove Finance Limited was subsequently named and changed as 'First India Credit Limited' in the month of December 2015, which was thereafter in the name of the 3rd respondent in the claim petition. 7. In order to prove the claim, the 3rd claimant was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined as eye-witness to the occurrence. Exs.P1 to 7 were marked on the side of the claimant. The 2nd respondent and 1st respondent were examined as R.Ws.1 & 2 respectively. The Branch Manager of the 3rd respondent was examined as R.W.3 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the 3rd respondent. R.W.4/purchaser of the motor cycle from the 'Dove Finance Company Limited' was also examined on the side of the 3rd respondent and Ex.R4 was also marked through R.W.4. There was no evidence on the side of the 4th respondent. 8. R.W.4/purchaser of the motor cycle from the 'Dove Finance Company Limited' was also examined on the side of the 3rd respondent and Ex.R4 was also marked through R.W.4. There was no evidence on the side of the 4th respondent. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-74-J-1550, driven by the 1st respondent, on the date occurrence and the 3rd respondent and 1st respondent, as owner and driver of the motor cycle on the date of occurrence are liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the death of Pitchaya Thevar and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent and 4th respondent in the claim petition in its award, dated 29.12.2011. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, fixing the liability to pay the awarded compensation upon the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent filed this appeal before this Court against the findings of the Tribunal. 10. The appellant, challenging the award, contending that the 2nd respondent in the MCOP is the registered owner of the vehicle and is liable to pay compensation and the appellant/3rd respondent in the claim petition is not liable to pay any compensation, since the 'Dove Finance Company Limited' was a financier of the said motor vehicle, which was given to the 2nd respondent, on the basis of hire purchase agreement. 11. The counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent/registered owner of the vehicle submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held and fixed the liability upon the 3rd respondent also to pay the compensation to the claimants, on the basis of the evidence produced by both sides. 12. Admittedly, the 7th respondent herein purchased the motor vehicle on hire purchase agreement from the 'Dove Finance Company Ltd', Vadachery, Nagercoil in the year 2005 and the said motor vehicle was seized from the 7th respondent from the said financier on 17.08.2005, for non- payment of dues, as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement and the 7th respondent was not in actual possession of the said motor cycle after its seizure by the financier and also was not in possession of the motor cycle on the date of accident held on 29.07.2008. The 7th respondent is the registered owner of the said motor cycle and ownership was subsequently transferred to the 8th respondent only on 28.07.2009 with effect from 27.07.2009, as per the entries found in Ex.P7/R.C.Book. 13. Though R.W.3 has admitted that the seized motor cycle was sold from 31.08.2008 onwards to several persons on different dates, no record is produced to substantiate the sales or transfer. R.W.4 deposed and admitted that he purchased the said motorcycle from the 'Dove Finance Company Ltd', on 17.08.2005, but no document of sale or transfer by the said finance company in favour of R.W.4 is filed either by R.W.4 or R.W.3 in this case. Admittedly, the 'Dove Finance Company Ltd.,' is not now in existence. As per Ex.R3, 'Dove Finance Company Ltd.,' was in existence till 26.12.2005 and thereafter, the said Company was changed as 'First India Credit Corporation Ltd', on 06.01.2006. 14. The 7th respondent did not take any steps to intimate the seizure by the Finance Company and also signing in the transfer documents to the concerned registering authority, since he was the registered owner of the motorcycle, on the date of purchase. As per Ex.P7, the name of the registered owner of the motorcycle is shown as 7th respondent herein, till the date of transfer of ownership in favour of 8th respondent on 28.07.2009. The 7th respondent did not take any steps to prove the fact that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle after its seizure by the finance company and also on the date of the accident. The 7th respondent herein is legally bound to prove the above fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicle to others, as per the alleged transferred documents signed and given to the 'Dove Finance Company' by the 7th respondent. Necessary application has not been made within the time to the registering authority in respect of the alleged sale, as contended by the appellant and also by the 7th respondent even after seizure of the motor vehicle. As per Ex.P7, the 7th respondent continue to remain as the registered owner of the vehicle even on the date of the accident, though he was not in possession of the said motor vehicle. 15. As per Ex.P7, the 7th respondent continue to remain as the registered owner of the vehicle even on the date of the accident, though he was not in possession of the said motor vehicle. 15. The accident took place on 29.07.2008, the 7th respondent was the owner of the motorcycle purchased by him from the 'Dove Finance Company Ltd', Vadachery, Nagercoil and the said motorcycle was seized from the 7th respondent on 17.08.2005 by the said financier and was sold to 'Ratna Auto Consulting', Nagercoil on 31.08.2005. 16. The alleged hire purchase agreement is also not produced either by the appellant or the 7th respondent herein regarding terms of the agreement. Hence, it is admitted that the 7th respondent and the financier were not in possession of the motorcycle, which involved in the accident on 29.07.2008. The 6th respondent herein is the rider of the motorcycle and also in possession of the vehicle, on the date of the accident ie., on 29.07.2008. Ex.P7 reveals that the 7th respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle under endorsement with hire purchase agreement with the 'Dove Finance Company Ltd' was also made on 22.11.2004, by the registering authority of RTO, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the 8th respondent with reference to the hypothecation terminated with 'Dove Finance with effect from 27.07.2009 and signed by the registering authority, Kanyakumari District on 28.07.2009. Except the above entries nothing is found in Ex.P7 in respect of other sales and transfers, as contended by the appellant. The 8th respondent became the transferee of the said motor vehicle only on 27.07.2009 i.e., after the date of accident. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured in the date of accident. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that, since as per Ex.P7, the 7th respondent herein is shown as registered owner and the said ownership was transferred to the 8th respondent after the accident and hence, the 7th respondent alone is the registered owner of the motor vehicle, which involved in the accident. The registered owner is liable to pay compensation along with rider of the said vehicle on the date of occurrence. The counsel for the appellant relied the following decisions in support of his contentions:- (i) The Judgment of Principal Bench of this Court in S.N.Shanmugham Vs. The registered owner is liable to pay compensation along with rider of the said vehicle on the date of occurrence. The counsel for the appellant relied the following decisions in support of his contentions:- (i) The Judgment of Principal Bench of this Court in S.N.Shanmugham Vs. Shankarlal Jain & Another reported in ( 2003 (2) L.W 126 ) wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, (1988), Section 50 - Transfer of title of motor vehicle by payment of consideration delivery - Held, as necessary application has not been made within the time to the Registering Authority, on the date of accident, the transferor (1st respondent) was the owner, and continued to be remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of the Registering Authority as owner.” (ii) In the Judgment of Apex Court in Pushpa Vs. Shakuntala reported in ( AIR 2007 SC 682 ) it has been held that- “Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss.168, 50, 2(30) ? Accident claim - Liability of ownership prior to accident - But neither transferor nor transferee took any step for change of name of owner in certificate of registration - In view of said omission, transferor must be deemed to continue as owner of vehicle for purposes of Act even though under civil law he would cease to be owner after sale of vehicle - Liable to pay compensation. (iii) The Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1427 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18943 of 2016), dated 06.02.2018 in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, it has been held that “the principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that a victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successful transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the statutory object and for the purpose of Act. Hence, interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law... But for the purpose of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. Hence, interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law... But for the purpose of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of law must be fulfilled. Hence appeal allowed”. 18. In this case on hand, as per the records, the 7th respondent herein is the registered owner of the vehicle even on the date of accident, though he was not in possession of the vehicle. It is admitted by the 7th respondent during the evidence that he has signed transfer forms in respect of the motor vehicle, which involved in the accident, to the Finance Company. The 7th respondent has not chosen to prove the fact that the 7th respondent is not the owner after signing the transfer of documents on the date of occurrence. Considering the principles laid down in the provisions of Section 2(30) of the said Act, the registered owner whose name found in the registration certificate is liable to pay the compensation to the victim. The 8th respondent became the owner of the said vehicle by way of transfer of ownership after the date of accident and hence, the 8th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 19. In the above stated circumstances, the liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fixed upon the 6th respondent herein as the rider of the said motorcycle and also the 7th respondent herein, as registered owner of the said motorcycle, on the date of occurrence. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the findings of the Tribunal in respect of fixing the appellant to pay compensation, and the award is modified, fixing liability to pay compensation by the 6st and 7th respondents jointly and severally to the victims. The respondents 6 & 7 are directed to pay the compensation to the claimants, as determined by the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.