JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. C.M.Appl.No.1/2019 & MACA No.2127/2019 This is an application for condonation of delay of 3045 days in filing the appeal. In the application it is alleged that due to financial stringencies the applicants/claim petitioners were unable to file the appeal. 2. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/driver. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The delay of 3045 days, that is, more than 8 years has not been explained in the application. Therefore, I do not find any reasons for condonation of this long delay in filing the appeal. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed. MACA No.94/2020 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second respondent/driver in O.P.(MV) No.1077/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 30/06/2010. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners and the first respondent/owner respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners on 13/06/2006 at about 08:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2 Q-8595 through Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram NH 47 road and when he reached at Vazhappally, car bearing registration No.KL 2 K 3942 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. Hence, the petition claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. 3. The second respondent/driver remained ex parte. 4. The first respondent, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, filed written statement contending that she had sold the vehicle to the second respondent as per sale agreement dated 10/08/2004 and that as on the date of the accident, the 2 nd respondent was the actual owner and possessor of the vehicle. Hence the 1 st respondent has no liability. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. Hence the 1 st respondent has no liability. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident. It was found that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and that the 2 nd respondent was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and hence awarded an amount of Rs.3,42,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The 2 nd respondent has been made liable to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the award, the second respondent/driver has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/driver of the offending car that going by the dictum in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 2018 SC 983 , it was the first respondent, who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence she is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal committed an error by directing the second respondent/driver to pay the compensation and hence interference into the impugned award is called for. 10. The evidence on record shows that the offending car was sold by the first respondent/owner to the second respondent/driver as per Ext.B1. However, no steps were taken to change the registration of the vehicle in the name of the second respondent. In the light of the dictum in Naveen Kumar (Supra) it is the registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident who would be held liable in such cases. However, it has also come out in evidence that it was the second respondent who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. His negligence has also been found on the basis of the materials on record. However, it has also come out in evidence that it was the second respondent who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. His negligence has also been found on the basis of the materials on record. That being the position, both the first respondent/the registered owner of the vehicle as well as the second respondent/driver will be jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. To the said extent the award shall stand modified. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that in the light of Order 41 Rule 33, this Court has got every power to enhance the compensation awarded in this case. The appeal filed by the claim petitioners, that is, MACA No.2127 of 2019 has been dismissed as no reasons were shown for condonation of delay of nearly 8 years in filing the appeal. On going through the award, I find that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded and therefore I find no reason(s) for interference into the same. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that both the first and the second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.