JUDGMENT : Is the owner of a motor vehicle who is yet to get the registration of the vehicle transferred to his name entitled to institute a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in respect of the damage caused to it in a motor accident, is the question falls for consideration in this matter. 2. The facts relevant are the following :- A car owned by the second respondent hit against a car owned by the first respondent on 2.10.2016. The third respondent was driving the car owned by the second respondent at the time of accident. The first respondent thereupon instituted a proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal alleging that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the third respondent and claimed compensation in the proceedings for the damage caused to his car from respondents 2 and 3 and also from the appellant who was the insurer of the car owned by the second respondent at the relevant time. The appellant contended that the first respondent is not the registered owner of the damaged car and he has, therefore, no locus standi to institute a proceedings for compensation in respect of the said car. The Tribunal found that though the damaged car was one purchased by the first respondent in terms of Ext.A3 receipt on 15.6.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- from its registered owner, its registration was not transferred to the name of the first respondent. Nevertheless, the Tribunal took the view that the first respondent is entitled to institute the proceedings for compensation for realisation of the loss caused to him in respect of the car. An award was passed by the Tribunal accordingly, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.82,254/- by way compensation to the first respondent. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) conferring right on the owner of a property damaged in a motor accident to claim compensation and the definition of 'owner' contained in Section 2(30) of the Act contended that the word 'owner' used in Section 166(1)(b) of the Act has to be understood in the light of the definition of 'owner' used in Section 2(30) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, if the word 'owner' used in Section 166(1)(b) is understood in the light of the definition in Section 2(30) of the Act, it can be seen that only a registered owner of a vehicle can institute a proceedings for compensation before the Tribunal for realisation of compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in so far as it is admitted that the first respondent is not the registered owner of the vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Prakash Chand Daga v Saveta Sharma and others ( 2019 ACJ 1 ) and the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Rao & Brothers and others ( 2019 ACJ 1 62), in support of the said contention. 5. A motor vehicle being a movable property, its sale and purchase are governed by the Sale of Goods Act. In terms of the said statute, between the transferor and the transferee, the sale of a motor vehicle is complete on payment of consideration and on taking possession of the vehicle. The provisions of the Act do not prevent a person from becoming the owner of a motor vehicle without registration and registration is not an essential pre-requisite for the acquisition of the ownership of a motor vehicle. The registration of a motor vehicle is an obligation cast on the owner of the vehicle in terms of the Act for the purpose of running the vehicle in a public place. In other words, in the light of the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the first respondent has purchased the vehicle in respect of which compensation is claimed in the proceedings, it cannot be said that the first respondent is not the owner of the vehicle. The question falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the owner of a motor vehicle, who is yet to get the registration of the vehicle transferred to his name, is entitled to institute a proceedings before the Tribunal for realisation of the compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle in a motor accident. 6. Section 166(1) of the Act conferring right on the owner of a property damaged in a motor accident reads thus : 166. 6. Section 166(1) of the Act conferring right on the owner of a property damaged in a motor accident reads thus : 166. Application for compensation. – (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of Section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Section 2(30) of the Act which defines 'owner' for the purpose of the Act reads thus : 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx (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; As noted, the word used in Section 166(1) of the Act is 'owner'. But, 'owner' is defined in the Act as a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, except where such person is a minor and in relation to motor vehicles which are subject of hire-purchase agreements, or agreements of lease or agreements of hypothecation. In so far as the vehicle involved in the accident in the instant case is not the subject of any hire-purchase agreement, or agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation and in so far as the claimant is not a minor, going by the definition clause, only its registered owner can be regarded as its owner for the purpose of the Act. It is seen, however, that the definition of 'owner' contained in the Act is to be construed having regard to the context as the definition clause contained in Section 2 of the Act starts with the expression 'unless the context otherwise requires'. Even otherwise, the interpretation clauses contained in a statute have to be understood keeping in view of the object of the statute. A definition is not to be read and understood in isolation, but must be given a meaningful application. In the context of the definition of 'owner' contained in Section 2(30) of the Act, the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepa Devi and others [ (2008)1 SCC 414 ] held that if in a given situation the statutory definition contained in the Act cannot be given effect to in its letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. In the light of the aforesaid principles, according to me, the word 'owner' contained in Section 166(1) of the Act has to be understood and interpreted as one including a person who has purchased the vehicle from the registered owner in accordance with law as well. I take this view essentially for the reason that there would be cases where accidents may occur within the time limit prescribed in terms of the Act for preferring applications for transfer of registration or during the pendency of the applications for transfer of registration. Cases where accidents occur on the way back from the premises of the seller also cannot be ruled out, as such instances have come to the notice of this court in very many cases. If the word 'owner' used in Section 166(1) of the Act is interpreted in the fashion in which it is understood by the appellant, persons who suffer damage of their vehicles in such cases would not be in a position to claim compensation. Yet another reason for me to hold the said view is that in the context of an application for compensation of the present nature, the vehicle is treated only as a property to which damage is caused. The contrary view propounded by the appellant, according to me, would not serve the purpose of the Act. 7. Yet another reason for me to hold the said view is that in the context of an application for compensation of the present nature, the vehicle is treated only as a property to which damage is caused. The contrary view propounded by the appellant, according to me, would not serve the purpose of the Act. 7. Prakash Chand Daga is a case dealing with the liability of the registered owner and Rao & Others is a case dealing with the locus standi of the transporter of the goods to institute an application for compensation in respect of the damage caused to the goods. The said judgments cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. The appeal, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.