JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal instituted by one Sheikh Mohidin challenging the judgment and award dated 17.11.2015 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 74/2011 awarding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the compensation of Rs.5,02,500/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till actual payment.

3. The accident that led to the institution of this Claim Petition took place on 25.02.2010, in which Vincent, a 48 years old milk seller-laborer earning Rs.5000/-per month, died. Piedade is his widow aged 46 years, and Ms. Casintra, his daughter, then aged 12 years, are the claimants.

4. This appeal is instituted by Sheikh Mohidin on the sole ground that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident because the registration continues in the name of respondent No.4, i.e., Anthony D. Vandal. There is no challenge on the factum of the accident, negligence of the driver, or quantum of compensation. The only contention is that respondent No.4, i.e., Anthony Vandal continues to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle, and therefore, no part of the liability could have been foisted upon the Appellant.

5. In support, Mr. Redkar relied on the provisions of Section 2(30) read with Section 166 of the M.V. Act. He relied on Naveen Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and others, (2018) 3 SCC 1, Prakash Chand Daga Vs Saveta Sharma and others, (2019) 2 SCC 747, and State of Maharashtra Vs Almonisa Hakim Kureshi and others, (2017) 6 Bom CR 62. Based on all this, Mr. Redkar submitted that the impugned award to the extent it holds the Appellant jointly and severally liable along with others may be set aside, and the Appellant is absolved of the liability to satisfy the award.

6. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Lopes, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants), pointed out that though the claimants applied for execution of the impugned award in the year 2016, to date, they have managed to recover only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-or thereabouts. He pointed out that the Appellant, as well as respondent No.4, have successfully avoided service or, in any case, refused to appear before the executing Court and face the execution proceedings. He pointed out that though this appeal was instituted, no stay was applied for, and thereafter there was no diligence in taking steps to get the matter ready for hearing. He pointed out that as a result, despite the impugned award and further, even though there was no stay, the Appellant, has frustrated the execution proceedings so that the claimants get no worthwhile compensation even though almost 12 years have passed from the date of the accident in which Vincent died.

7. Mr. Lopes also pointed out that the Appellant, in his pleadings, admitted to the ownership of the offending vehicle. The Appellant claimed to have even transferred the vehicle to Rehmat Khan. The evidence on record shows that for the period between 2005-and 2010, it is the Appellant who took out insurance policies in respect of the offending vehicle in his own name. He pointed out that the insurance policies also indicate in unambiguous terms that it is the Appellant who hypothecated the offending vehicle with the Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. Mr. Lopes, therefore, submits that even in terms of the provisions of Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act and the decision in Naveen Kumar (supra) the Appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle and cannot avoid liability.

8. Mr. Lopes also pointed out that the impugned award fails to make an addition of 25% towards future prospects and award compensation for the consortium to the minor daughter Ms. Casintra. He submitted that the compensation amount in terms of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 would come to Rs.7,60,000/-. He submitted that it is the duty of this Court to award just compensation even though no cross-appeal or cr