1. A question of inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner of the offending vehicle and right of the registered owner to recover compensation paid to the injured from the defacto owner in a proceeding initiated by the injured before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") is required to be decided in this appeal.

2. It is not disputed and proved that the first respondent suffered injuries in a motor accident involving a scooter on 31.05.2004. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the 3rd respondent riding that scooter in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle had no insurance coverage. The appellant contended that he had transferred the vehicle to Shine, S/o. Balakrishnan as per Ext.B1 on 25.10.1998. The second respondent purchased the said vehicle from Shine in the year, 2000. The appellant claimed that he is not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent.

3. The Tribunal referred to the relevant documents concerning transfer of the vehicle to Shine and the second respondent and observed in paragraph 12 of the award that since the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident he cannot escape liability. The appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 were made liable to pay compensation to the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sec.175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), inter se dispute between the appellant and the second respondent regarding transfer of the vehicle is to be decided by the Tribunal. If it is found that there was a transfer of the vehicle prior to the accident, may be the registered owner continues to be liable to the 3rd parties but the registered owner is entitled to recover the amount if realised from him from the real owner. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Dr. T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan and others ((2001)8 SCC 748), National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (2004(1) KLT 781),National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur (2004(2) SCC 1), P.P. Mohammed V. K. Rajappan and others ((2008)17 SCC 624) and Pushpa @ Leela and others V. Shakuntala and others ((2011)2 SCC 240).

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 argued that remedy of the appellant is to move the Civil Court for recovery of the amount if any from the second respondent.

6. Question is whether inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner could be decided by the Tribunal and the registered owner could be given right to recover the amount if any realised from him from the defacto owner ? In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (supra) the Supreme Court observed, "In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide the disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided under Sec.174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants." In Dr. T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan and others (supra) the Supreme Court refused to look into the inter se dispute between the registered owner (transferor) and the defacto owner (transferee) for the reason that the transferee was impleaded in the proceeding only in the Supreme Court. In Pushpa @ Leela andothers V. Shakuntala and others (supra) the policy of insurance was taken in the name of the registered owner even after transfer of the vehicle. Hence it was held that inter se dispute between the respondents in the claim petition was not required to be decided. The above decisions