The actual owner can be different from the registered owner, and if the registered owner has transferred the ownership to a different person, the tortious liability will have to be borne by the transferee despite the non-transfer of the registration.

1. A young man by name Vijayan was knocked down by a bus (KLE-578) during the morning hours of 5-11-1971. Within a few minutes Vijayan succumbed to his injuries. Appellants, the parents and the grandmother of Vijayan, instituted the suit for compensation against the respondents alleging that the accident was the consequence of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver the 10th defendant.

2. One Shri P.M. Mathai was the registered owner of the bus at the time of the accident. His widow and children are defendants 1 to 9 against whom the appellants made the claim for compensation. The 11th defendant is the person in whose favour the ownership of the bus is said to have been transferred as early as 9-7-1970.

3. The trial court rejected the contention of the defendants that the accident was not the result of the negligence on the part of the bus driver. The learned Sub Judge found that the appellants are entitled to be compensated on account of the death of Vijayan. However, the learned Sub Judge accepted the contention of defendants 1 to 9 that the ownership of the bus was transferred to the 11th defendant on 9-7-1970. Hence a decree was passed against defendants 10 and 11 for a sum of Rs. 36100/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit.

4. The appellants in this appeal challenge the finding of the court below that defendants 1 to 9 are not liable for the damages as the vehicle was transferred to the 11th defendant even prior to the date of accident, and as the driver of the bus was not then acting in the course of those persons' employment.

5. The relevant contentions of defendants 1 to 9, on this score, are that Shri P.M. Mathai was one of the partners of a firm by name M/s. Mar Bascil Bus Service, with its abbreviations "MBBS", and the Bus (KLE-578) belonged to the firm and Shri Mathai was its registered owner, and that the said bus was transferred by him in favour of the 11th defendant on 9-7-1970 for which Ext.B3 agreement was executed on 21-7-1970 incorporating the terms of the sale. It is further contended that the driver of the bus had left the services of the firm "MBBS" soon after the execution of Ext.B3. According to those defendants, the registration of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the 11th defendant since the liability to pay the vehicle tax for this bus remained unsettled.

6. In this appeal we need not consider the questions as to whether Vijayan was knocked down by the bus as alleged and whether the incident was the consequence of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver or even as to the quantum of damages. Those questions were answered by the learned Sub Judge in favour of the appellants and they have not been challenged now. The only question which is urged in this appeal is whether the legal representatives of Shri Mathai (the registered owner) are liable to pay the compensation to the appellants.

7. Admittedly, Shri Mathai was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Ext.B3 shows that the said bus was sold to the 11th defendant on 9-7-70. Of course the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Ext.B3 is a sham document and the transfer mentioned therein was not intended to come into effect. This contention raised during the appellate stage appears to us to be an after thought because the appellants never raised such a contention in the court below. The appellants were told by the contesting defendants even when they sent a reply to the suit notice that they stand mainly on the contention that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the 11th defendant as early as 9-7-1970 itself. This can be found in Ext.B5 reply notice sent by an advocate on behalf of defendants 1 to 9. Taking cue from Ext.B5 reply notice, the appellants made defendant No. 11 a party to the suit and claimed a relief against him also. The learned Sub Judge has observed in Para.8 of his judgment that "the plaintiffs have no case that Ext.B3 is a d