Order : MANEESH SHARMA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 and Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sikar in Accident Claim No.86/2005 titled as "Smt. Sajjan Kanwar & Anr. Vs. Mahendra Singh and Ors.", whereby the claim petition has been allowed and compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- has been awarded against the appellant. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant-Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and Mahendra Singh filed a claim petition stating that on 21.10.2002, the deceased Bhanwar Singh was going on foot to his village Godiyawas while Jeep bearing No.RRT 6757 coming from Suliyawas, hit him from behind. As a result of the said accident, Bhanwar Singh got seriously injured and during his treatment, he died. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep for which the claimants sought compensation. 3. Non-claimants No.1 and 2 (Mahendra and Todaram) filed their response and contended that they are not registered owner of the Jeep in question and the Jeep was owned by respondent/non-claimant-Jaidev. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. In the reply to the claim petition, Respondent No.3-Jaidev contended that the vehicle had already been sold to non-applicant No.2-Todaram, although the registration was not transferred but selling of the vehicle is well proved. Consequently, respondent No.3-Jaidev sought dismissal of the claim against him and the fastening of liability on non-claimant No.2-Todaram. 5. That non-applicant No.4-Raghuveer Singh did not appear, therefore, ex-parte was drawn against him. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned MACT Court has framed the following issues: 7. After considering the evidence led by the parties, including the testimony of AW.1-Ummed Singh, AW.2-Mohan Lal, NAW.1- Jaidev, and the documents exhibited as Ex.P.1 to P.14 and Ex.A.1 to A.6, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. While fixing the liability, the learned MACT Court observed that since the vehicle was sold to non-applicant No.2-Todaram on 08.10.1985, the liability to pay compensation fasten solely upon appellant-Todaram and no liability was imposed on respondent No. 3-Jaidev. 8. Aggrieved by this finding regarding the liability, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-non-applicant No.2- Todaram. 1,35,000/-. While fixing the liability, the learned MACT Court observed that since the vehicle was sold to non-applicant No.2-Todaram on 08.10.1985, the liability to pay compensation fasten solely upon appellant-Todaram and no liability was imposed on respondent No. 3-Jaidev. 8. Aggrieved by this finding regarding the liability, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-non-applicant No.2- Todaram. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Court below erred in holding the appellant to be the registered owner of the vehicle and accordingly, the reasons given in the impugned order for holding the appellant liable are perverse and contrary to law. It is argued that based on the definition of "owner" under the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability ought to have been fastened upon respondent No. 3-Jaidev, who is the registered owner of the vehicle as per RC of the vehicle (Ex.12). 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Claimants (Respondents No. 1 and 2) argued that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Jaidev supported the reasoning of the learned MACT Court, contending that the sale of the vehicle to the appellant on 08.10.1985 is well proved, coupled with the appellant's admission regarding the ownership of the vehicle in the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, justifies the imposition of liability on the Appellant. 11. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. A bare perusal of the record reveals that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle (Ex.12), respondent No.3-Jaidev is recorded as the owner. 13. The definition of "owner" under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly states: (30)"owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where that 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 the agreement;" 14. In the present case, the learned MACT Court fastened the liability on the Appellant primarily based on the appellant's admission of ownership in response to a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the fact that the vehicle was handed over to the appellant pursuant to the sale. However, this reasoning is contrary to the settled legal position, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 596 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that "for the purpose of determining liability in motor accident claims, the registered owner of the vehicle is primarily liable, notwithstanding any sale or transfer of possession without a corresponding transfer of registration." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar reported in 2018 (3) SCC 1 held that "in view of the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who for the purposes of the said Act, would be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Where the registered owner purports to transfer the vehicle, but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of his liability as owner." Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pushpa @ Leela Vs. Shakuntala reported in 2011 SC 682 held that "the registered owner continues to remain owner and when the vehicle is Insured in the name of the registered owner, the Insurer would remain liable notwithstanding any transfer, would apply equally in the case of claims made by the insured himself in case of an accident. If the insured continues to remain the owner in law in view of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in particular Section 2(30) thereof, the Insurer cannot evade its liability in case of an accident." 15. It is also relevant to note the difference between the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the definition of owner in Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which has been repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also relevant to note the difference between the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the definition of owner in Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which has been repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the old Act 'owner' meant the person in possession of a motor vehicle. The definition has undergone a change. Legislature has consciously changed the definition of 'owner' to mean the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands. 16. The earlier definition of "owner" under the old Motor Vehicles Act, which included a person in possession, has been consciously omitted by the legislature in the present Act. Thus, the law is well settled and can be summarized:- "Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third party." 17. In the present case, it is undisputed that the vehicle's registration stands in the name of respondent No. 3-Jaidev. The purported sale to the appellant, without a transfer of registration, does not absolve the registered owner of his liability. Therefore, the finding of the learned MACT Court fastening the liability on the appellant is perverse and contrary to the mandate of law. That in view of the above settled legal proposition, the judgment and order passed by the learned MACT is unsustainable. Therefore, hereby set aside and modified. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the learned MACT Court, to the extent that it fastens the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Todaram, is hereby modified. The claimants shall be entitled to receive the awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- from respondent No. 3-Jaidev, who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question as per the certificate of registration (Ex-12). 19. The impugned order of the learned MACT Court is modified to the extent that instead of appellant-Todaram now respondent No. 3-Jaidev, being the registered owner of the vehicle, shall be liable to pay the aforementioned compensation to the claimants. 20. The appeal is partly allowed in the terms stated above. 21. Record of the learned MACT Court be sent back. 22. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.