The registration of a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle under section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not a condition precedent for the transfer to be valid. The absence of registration does not invalidate the sale or make it ineffective.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 56 of 1967 filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company and No. 58 of 1967 filed by Gurcharan Singh against the judgment of a learned Single judge (S. N. Andley, J.) dated 16th March, 1967 by which the learned Judge modified the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 20th July, 1965. Smt. Vimal Rai and two others (respondent before us) are the legal representatives of Balwant Rai deceased who died in the accident. The Orient Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (appellant in one appeal) is hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the insurance company. Gurcharan Singh (appellant in the other appeal) is the erstwhile owner of the motor cycle involved in the accident and is hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, REFERRED TO to as the seller while M. G. Krishna Roy, respondent No. 6 in the first mentioned appeal, is hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the purchaser. Gulzari Lal respondent No. 8, proprietor of a motor repairs garage, is REFERRED TO to as the garage- man while Ram Lal, who drove the motor cycle in dispute and caused the accident, is REFERRED TO to as the mechanic.

( 2 ) THE accident which resulted in the death of Balwant Rai deceased occurred on 16th July, 1963 and it involved motor cycle, Jawa make, 1962 model, DLO. 2706. This motor cycle was registered in the name of the seller and he had taken an insurance policy from the insurance company on or about 16th October, 1962 which was valid for a period of one year expiring on 15th October, 1963. The policy was comprehensive and covered third party risks. On or shortly before the date of the accident, the motor cycle had been given to the buyer and he found a defect in the kick and gave it to the garage man who carried out the repairs and while it was with him, the said mechanic drove the motor-cycle and caused the fatal accident. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of Ramlal mechanic and the garage man for payment of compensation in respect of the deceased. The question for determination is whether Gurcharan Singh, the seller, or M. G. Krishna Roy purchaser is liable to make compensation to the deceased and if the seller is liable, the insurance company is certainly liable, but if the motor cycle had been sold to the purchaser, the insurance company claims exoneration from liability, as the contract of indemnity contained in the insurance policy had lapsed. It is not denied that the purchaser did not give any information about the purchase of the vehicle to the motor registering authorities or to the insurance company till 24th or 25th July, 1963 and it was on 23rd September, 1963 that he obtained an endorsement of the policy in his name.

( 3 ) THE legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which came to the conclusion that Gurcharan Singh seller had sold the Vehicle to the purchaser and so was not liable and consequently the insurance company was exonerated from the liability. He therefore, dismissed the claim against the insurance company as well as the seller and the purchaser, but awarded a sum of Rs. 31,500/ against the mechanic and the garage man.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court arrived at a contrary conclusion and he d that no sale of the motor cycle had taken place either in fact or in law on the date of the accident and so the seller and as a consequence the insurance company remained liable to pay compensation. His lordship, therefore, awarded it against the seller, the insurance company and the mechanic. On the said findings, compensation ought also to have been awarded against the garage man and the counsel appearing before us admitted that this was an obvious error and in any view of the matter, the mechanic and the garage man both are certainly liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased.

( 5 ) MR. Dhanda counsel for the insurance company has raise