The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of all the respondents, including the vehicle owner, to pay the compensation amount under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

T. Sudanthiram, J.

The appellant herein is the claimant in MCOP.No.152 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 3. 1993 at 3.00 p.m., while the claimant was walking along with the other family members on the Trichy main road near Coimbatore Medical College, a Scooter bearing Registration No.TN-V-4838 came behind him in a rash and negligent manner and hit him as a result of which he sustained fracture in his right leg. After taking treatment, he filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent herein is the rider of the Scooter, the second respondent herein is the registered owner of the vehicle.

3. The second respondent herein resisted the claim by filing counter before the Tribunal stating that on 12. 1987 itself, he sold the said vehicle to one Kathirvel S/o. Krishnan residing in front of the Head Post Office, Coimbatore, and also handed over possession of the vehicle also. He also signed the relevant documents and handed over them to the said Kathirvel. Subsequent to the filing of the counter by the second respondent herein, the interim application was filed to implead the said Kathirvel as one of the respondents. An amended claim petition also was filed including the third respondent herein as one of the respondents. Though notice was served by the Tribunal, both the first and third respondent herein have remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. To prove the case of the claimant, four witnesses have been examined on his side and 12 exhibits were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the second respondent herein examined himself as RW.1 and one exhibit was marked. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent herein and awarded a compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim petition to be paid by the first and third respondents herein.

5. The claimant/appellant herein aggrieved by the Judgement of the Tribunal, which excluded the liability of the other respondents and also not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgement and decree of the Tribunal praying to set aside the Judgement and decree of the Tribunal and consequently to pass an award by this Court against all the respondents directing them to pay the compensation amount to the claimant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal totally ignored the evidence of P.W.4, the Junior Assistant from the office of the Regional Transport Officer who had deposed that from 7. 1981, the second respondent herein namely Dr. A. Nallamuthu continued to be the registered owner till date. The first respondent herein/rider of the vehicle being rash and negligent in his act, the first liability is on him and the second respondent herein being the owned of the vehicle, there is a vicarious liability on the second respondent herein. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that both the transferor and transferee are liable and relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. and Others (2001) ACJ 2059 followed by this Court in S.N. Shanmugham v. Shankarlal Jain and Another (2003) 1 MLJ 380: (2002) 2 LW 126. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Sajjan Devi v. Mool Chand and Others (2006) 3 ACC 233.

7. The learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal while awarding a compensation amount has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income and as the claimant had been the agriculturist and he was in the hospital for 67 days, he could not attend any work.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent sub