The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle does not absolve the transferor from liability, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and previous court decisions.

Being aggrieved by the finding fastening liability on the appellant, the present appeal is filed. The second respondent, who has alleged to have purchased the vehicle, has remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Though both the respondents have been served and their names were also shown in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf, either in person or through the counsel. Thus, even before this Court, there is no appearance on their behalf. Therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of the appeal on merits.

2. In an accident, which occurred on 19.1.2001, the first respondent/claimant sustained compound fracture of left tibia and fibula and trochanteric fracture in left hip. Plates were fitted to fuse the fractured bones. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. Therefore, the injured has claimed compensation as against the appellant and the second respondent.

3. The second respondent, in his counter affidavit it has denied the accident. He further submitted that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of the Insurance Company of the vehicle TVS 50 XL bearing Registration No. TN 37 U 3070, in which the respondent/claimant traveled. He further submitted that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the respondent/claimant. However, at Paragraph 7, he has admitted that he has purchased the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TAP 5378 from the appellant, Mr. Duraisamy on 13.8.2001 and nevertheless, contended that he cannot be made responsible to pay compensation.

4. Per contra, before the Tribunal, the appellant herein has submitted that prior to the date of accident, i.e., on 13.8.2001, he had sold his TVS Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TAP 5378 to Mr. R. Manoharan (second respondent in this appeal) with specific instructions, to effect name transfer, immediately in the records that are maintained by the Regional Transport Authority and also to take insurance coverage for the vehicle before effecting name transfer. According to him, the vehicle was taken possession by the second respondent on the same day and in this regard, a delivery note was also issued. He further submitted that the accident had occurred on 19.8.2001 and therefore, having sold the vehicle on 13.8.2001, much earlier to the date of accident, he cannot be held responsible.

5. Without prejudice to the above contentions, both the respondents before the Tribunal, has disputed the quantum of compensation under various heads.

6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.2, is the Doctor, who examined the respondent/claimant with reference to medical records. Exhibit P-1 – FIR, Exhibit P.2 – Sketch, Exhibits P-3 and P-4 – Motor Vehicle Inspectors’ report, Exhibit P-5 – Charge Sheet, Exhibit P-6 is the proof for payment of fine by Mr. R. Manoharan (second respondent in this appeal), Exhibit P-7 – Wound Certificate, Exhibit P-8 – Discharge Summary from G.R. Hospital, Exhibit P-9 – Medical Bills, Exhibit PIO – X-Rays (series), Exhibit P-11 – Medical Bills from G.R. Hospital, Exhibit P-12 – Medical Bills issued by K.G. Hospital, Exhibit P-13 – Medical Bills towards fee paid to the Orthopadiecian, Exhibit P-14 – discharge Summary of ESI Hospital, Exhibit P-15 Medical Bills for Eye surgery, Exhibit P-16 – Learner’s licence, Exibit P-17 – Salary Certificate, Exhibit P-18 – Leave Certificate, Exhibit P-19 – X-Ray, Exhibit P-20 – Disability certificate and Exhibit P-21 – Certificate issued by the Doctor for future medical expenses were marked on behalf of the first respondent/claimant. The appellant examined himself as R.W.1 and he has produced Exhibit R-1 – Delivery Note, dated 13.8.2001.

7. The Tribunal, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident has occurred due to the fault of the first respondent. The findings of the Tribunal regard