Reva Khetrapal, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows.

3. The Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Appellant and the Respondents No. 5 to 7 for grant of compensation of ` 20 lakhs jointly and severally together with interest thereon. The said claim petition was filed as a result of a road accident which took place on 12.02.2005 at 2.30 p.m. when Shri Bishambar, the husband of the Respondent No. 1 and the father of the Respondents No. 2 to 4, was crossing the main road at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg and was hit by a scooter bearing No. DL-7S-K-9664, being driven by the Respondent No. 5, who was coming from the side of Sudharshan Chowk rashly and negligently at a very high speed. A case bearing FIR No. 54/05 was registered under Sections 279/304A IPC against the Respondent No. 5, who was then arrested and charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences as well as for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for not possessing a driving licence.

4. Although initially the petition was instituted u/s 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was subsequently converted into a petition u/s 163A of the said Act with the leave of the Claims Tribunal. Notice of the filing of the petition was served on the Respondents No. 5 to 7 and the Appellant. The driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the Respondent No. 5 herein, contested the case on the ground that he was not driving vehicle No. DL-7S-K-9664 at the time of the accident. The Appellant, Shri Mukesh Kumar contested the case on the ground that he had sold the vehicle in question to the Respondent No. 6 herein, Shri Om Prakash, son of Shri J.M. Aggarwal, resident of Kalyanpuri, Delhi on 20.07.2004. The Respondent No. 6, in his turn, contested the case on the ground that he was not aware of the accident and the death of the deceased as the alleged offending scooter was not in his possession at the time of the accident. He submitted that he had purchased the scooter from Shri Mukesh Kumar, the Appellant in the month of July, 2004 and the latter had handed over the possession of the said scooter to him with the assurance that the requisite Forms 29 and 30 for change of ownership through the Registering Authority would be delivered to him within the prescribed period of one month from the date of the delivery challan, which was signed by him on 20.07.2004. However, despite his repeated requests the Appellant did not deliver the required forms and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other for reasons best known to him, and as such, he could not get the vehicle transferred in his name within the prescribed period of one month. Thereupon, he claims that it was orally agreed that the Appellant would take back the possession of the scooter and thus he handed over the possession of the scooter back to the Appellant, and as a result the said scooter was in the possession and control of the Appellant at the time of the accident.

5. The Respondent No. 7 - Insurance Company in the written statement filed by it admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy No. 221504/31/04/01393, which was valid from 01.06.2004 to 31.05.2005. It, however, denied the remaining allegations and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. After the framing of issues, the parties adduced their respective evidence. The Respondents No. 1 to 4 summoned in the witness box PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Devi, the widow of the deceased and PW2 Shri Harish Chand Pandey, who proved on record the post-mortem report of the deceased. The Appellant Mukesh Kumar, who is the recorded owner, examined himself as R2W1. The Respondent No. 7 - Insurance Company examined its Assistant Manager Shri R.K. Sharma as R3W1. The Respondent No. 6 Om Prakash examined himself