JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. By this Appeal, the appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 31st October 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai holding the appellant liable to pay entire amount of compensation of Rs. 1,34,000/- with interest @ 7.4% p.a. from the date of application till realization. The issue arises for consideration of this Court is whether the appellant though claims to have sold the vehicle No. MH-3 7791 to the respondent No. 1, but continued to be registered owner in the records of Regional Transport Office on the date of accident, he was liable to pay compensation to the respondent no. 2.

2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant had sold the said vehicle to the respondent No. 2 and had handed over possession thereof alongwith delivery note and requisite documents to enable the respondent No. 2 to transfer the said vehicle in his name in the records of RTO.

3. On 8th March 2008, the respondent No. 1 was knocked down by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was admitted to the hospital and was treated after 15th March 2008 and thereafter between 18th March 2008 and 24th March 2008. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the MACT, Mumbai against the respondent No. 2 and the appellant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with application under section 140 of the said Act for 'No Fault Liability'. On 11th June 2009, MACT, Mumbai passed Judgment and Order holding the appellant liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1.

4. Mr. Talreja, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though on the date of accident the vehicle was not transferred to the name of the purchaser inspite of handing over delivery note and all requisite documents, his client cannot be made liable to pay compensation amount on the ground that the vehicle stood in the name of his client on the date of accident. He placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Kishan Pandurang Kagde vs. Baldev Singh Gian Singh and another [(1977) Mh.L.J. 6569] and in particular paragraph 8 thereof. He also placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Virendrakumar J. Handa Vs. Dilawarkhan Alij Khan and others [1991 (3) Bombay Cases Reporter 218] and in particular paragraph 19 thereof in support of his submissions.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal and more particularly in paragraph 5 thereof. His submission is that the registration certificate in respect of the said vehicle was admittedly continued in the name of the appellant. The said vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No. 2 on 29th December 2008 and thus it is clear that on the date of accident the vehicle continued to be in the name of the appellant. She has strongly placed reliance on the definition of "Owner" under section 2(30) of the M.V. Act, 1988 and also section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. She submits that the appellant was under an obligation to transfer the said vehicle under section 50 of the said Act within the time prescribed. In this case the vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No. 2 on 29th December 2008 that is much after the date of accident i.e. on 8th March 2008. She strongly placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others delivered on 6th February 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 1427 of 2018. She submits that after adverting to various earlier Judgments of the Supreme Court, and after construing section 2 (30) and section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Supreme Court has held that the person in whose name the vehicle stood registered on the date of accident which vehicle was not insured would continue to be the owner of the vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (30) and would be responsible to make payment of compensation.

6. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that though the appellant claims to h