( 1. ) (for himself and on behalf of Sardar Ali Khan, J.) C.M.A. No. 302 of 1976:-Naseeruddin Hussain was an employee in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce. He was on his way to office on a cycle on October 11, 1973. At 10-45 a.m. he was at Shah Inayat Ganj Police Station. The vehicle (lorry) ADT 263 was in front of him on the road. There was another lorry APT 7879 behind him. Mannu Singh, a Police Constable No. 2626 of Shah Inayat Ganj Police Station, stopped ADT 263. The Constable directed the driver of the vehicle to proceed on the "correct side" of the highway. The driver of ADT 263 thereupon reversed the motion of the vehicle. He swerved the vehicle and dashed APT 7879 and hit Naseeruddin. Due to injuries received at the accident on the same day at the hospital Naseeruddin died. His spouse and her eight children clauned damages before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They were awarded Rs. 32,000/towards compensation. The Tribunal, inter alia, ordered M. Kondaiah (the purchaser of ADT 263) to pay the amount to the dependents of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, Kondaiah filed the above appeal.

( 2. ) In this appeal, the findings reached by the Tribunal on the points of negligence or on the quantum of compensation are not assailed. The issue raised relates to ownership of vehicle ADT 263.

( 3. ) M/s. Rajkamala Transport Company were the original owners of the vehicle. The Transport Company are alleged to have sold the vehicle on March 14, 1973, under agreement, Ex.B.1, and received Rs.85,000/-from Kondaiah towards sale consideration of the vehicle. Rs. 60,000/-were paid on the date of agreement and balance of sale price Rs. 25,000/-on March 29. The vehicle was delivered to Vendee on the former date. The Vendor had a road permit for the vehicle The permit was also delivered to the Vendee with the vehicle. The vehicle was insured for third party risks on July 30, 1973 for Rs. 50,000/-The insurance policy was not transferred to the Vendee. The Vendee or Vendor did not inform the insurance company of transfer of the vehicle. The facts show the Vendee used the vehicle between March and October of 1973 without obtaining a fresh insurance policy to protect third party interests. The Vendee further did not lodge before the registering authority any petition under the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) under S.31 for mutation of vehicle certificate in his name.

( 4. ) Before the Tribunal, the factum of delivery of the vehicle on March 14 and payment of Rs. 85,000/-to the Vendor was not disputed. The Vendee, however, in resisting the claim relied on certain clauses of agreement Ex. B.1 to show title of the vehicle remained with the Vendor. The Vendor (the transport company) in the case, however, maintained to have sold the vehicle on March i 4, 1973 for consideration. The Vendor pointed out the employee of the Vendee was at the wheel of the vehicle at the accident. Due to the forlorn act of the driver, it was alleged, the accident occurred. Therefore, the transport company contended compensation was payable by the Vendee and the Vendor was not in law liable to pay the compensation.

( 5. ) The insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured on July 30, 1973 for third party risks asserted the insurance authorities were not aware of the sale of vehicle. The Vendor who had insured with them did not inform them, the vehicle was under the control of the Vendee on October 11, 1973, therefore, Vendee is responsible for payment of compensation. The insurance company further contended as a result of sale of vehicle the policy issued by them on July, 30 to the assured the Vendor) stood terminated in law and for that reason the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependents of the deceased.

( 6. ) Thus, on pleadings before the Tribunal eight issues were raised : "1. Whether the drivers of the vehicles ADT 263 and APT 7879 strove the said vehicles in a rash and negligent manner on 11-10-1973