1. The 2nd respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.333 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, who has been shown as owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal directing him to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the road accident.

2. The vehicle involved in this case is a tractor. Admittedly, since there was no insurance for the vehicle, the claimants have sought for compensation from the appellant alleging him the owner of the vehicle and his driver had caused the accident in which their son had died.

3. On 04.10.1996, at about 9.15 a.m., on the Arur – Salem main road, near Nachinampatti Junction, one Dhanapal, came driven his Hero Honda Bike. At that time, the tractor and trailer came driven by one Kannan in a rash and negligent manner hit against Dhanapal. He fell down. The vehicle ran over him. He died on the spot. His parents, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, have sought for compensation before the Tribunal.

4. The deceased died a bachelor. The Tribunal taking into account his age, income and other relevant factors, determined the total compensation of Rs.2,06,000/-. The Tribunal negatived the contention of appellant that the said tractor was not involved in the accident and even before the accident he had sold the vehicle to another person and thus directed the appellant to pay them the compensation amount.

5. Challenging this Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 was once belonged to the appellant, however, tractor No.TN-29-A-5452 is mentioned in Ex.B4 FIR, so, tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 is not involved in the accident. Further, the accident was on 04.10.1996, however, under Ex.B2 sale receipt the appellant had sold tractor No.TN-29-A-5451 on 27.09.1995 itself to one Nagaraj. So, on the date when the accident took place, the appellant was not the owner of the tractor. So, he cannot be asked to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal was wrong in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount.

6. On the other hand, Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the appellant is trying to drive capital out of a typographical mistake crept in in mentioning the tractor number in the typed copy of the F.I.R. issued by the Magistrate Court. The oral and documentary evidence let in clearly shows that on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. His Ex.B2 sale receipt is concocted and conceived only to avoid paying compensation to the dependents.

7. Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan further submitted that as long as the appellant's name continues as registered owner in the RTO records, he is bound to pay the compensation. In support this, the learned counsel cited DR.T.V.JOSE Vs. CHACKO P.M. ALIAS THANKACHAN AND OTHERS (2001 (8) SCC 748) and PUSHPA @ LEELA & OTHERS Vs. SHAKUNTALA & OTHERS (2011(2)CTC 693).

8. Admittedly, on 04.10.1996, at about 9.15 a.m., on the Arur – Salem Main Road, near Nachinampatti Junction, road accident has taken place. In this accident a tractor has been involved. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, namely, Kannan, who is the first respondent in the claim petition. The said Kannan is stated to be the driver of the appellant. However, the appellant denied his employment with him.

9. P.W.2, Ealumalai has been examined as an eye witness to the accident. He only lodged the complaint with the police. Based upon that police registered the F.I.R. P.W.2 had clearly stated that he had seen the accident, the tractor was driven by the first respondent and it had ran over the deceased and along with the tractor the said driver was also taken to the police station. Ex.A4 is a copy of his driving licence. He remained exparte.

10. The appellant did not deny tractor No.TN-29-A-5