P.K.Sarkar, J.

1. This misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Addl. Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh whereby he allowed compensation of Rs. 96,000 with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim up to the date of realisation from opposite party No. 1, owner of the vehicle truck bearing No. BHM 1207 which was the subject-matter of the accident.

2. It may be mentioned here that two claim cases bearing No. 8 of 1986 and No. 95 of 1985 arising out of the same accident were filed. Hence both the aforesaid cases were disposed by a common judgment. Claim Case No. 8 of 1986 was filed under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereas Claim Case No. 95 of 1985 was filed u/s. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and in both the cases the parties were the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order Md. Moinuddin alias Gural Mohiuddin, the owner of the vehicle in question has filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated as follows: On 22.9.1985 at about 6 p.m. Shamim Ahmad was sitting along with Gaya Prasad and Ganga Ram. At that time truck No. BHM 1207 which was being driven by Karu Gope, OP 2, rashly and negligently dashed against Shamim Ahmad as a result he received serious injuries. He was removed to CCL Hospital, Barkakhana and from there to Ranchi but he died on the way. The claimants claimed that Shamim Ahmad was the only earning member of their family. The claimants submitted that they are the heirs of the deceased Shamim Ahmad. It was also contended that Shamim Ahmad was tailor by profession and his monthly income was Rs. 1,500. On that basis a sum of Rs. 2,45,000 was claimed as compensation and interim compensation of Rs. 15,000 was claimed u/s. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Opposite party No. 2, the driver, did not file any written statement. However, OP 1, the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement and contested the case. OP 1 in his written statement has submitted that he was not the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident. He had sold the said vehicle on 30.4.1985 to Karu Gope, OP 2 and the vehicle was handed over to him. An agreement paper was executed on the aforesaid fact. Thus on the date of accident Karu Gope was the owner of the vehicle and was having all the rights and responsibilities with regard to the said vehicle. It was also alleged that OP 1 has no knowledge about the accident dated 22.9.1985. This opposite party No. 1 has challenged the order of compensation as exaggerated. In this connection, however, it may be mentioned that OP 1 did not mention the name of the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured.

5. Both the parties adduced evidences and on consideration of those evidences and also the submissions made before the said Claims Tribunal, the impugned order was passed wherein a sum of Rs. 96,000 has been awarded as compensation against OP 1 inclusive of interim compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of realisation of the aforesaid amount.

6. Both the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, firstly, because he had sold the vehicle to OP 2, Karu Gope on 30.4.1985 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 22.9.1985, i.,e., much after the aforesaid sale. A paper was also executed to that effect and thus any liability on account of the accident in question will be on the new owner and not on OP 1. Secondly, it is submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accident occurred on the date of occurrence in the manner as alleged and also that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and neglir gently. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in Mehtab Singh V/s. National Fire & Genl Ins. Co. Ltd., 1958-65 ACJ 250 (Punjab), whe