N. Seshasayee, J.

This is appeal is preferred by an alleged owner of the motor vehicle who was held dis entitled to claim damages that his car had suffered in a road accident.

2. On 27-11-1999, early in the morning, the car belonging to the claimant met with an accident when a lorry bearing Registration No.CAM 6566 belonging to the first respondent insured with second respondent had collided against it. The car was on its return trip to Bangalore and the accident had taken place near Hosur. The inmates of the car suffered injuries and both the injured passenger as well as the petitioner have preferred separate claims, in the former case for personal injuries to person, and in the latter case for damage to the vehicle against the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. By a common order, the Tribunal allowed the claim for injury suffered to the inmate of the car whereas it dismissed the claim for damage to the car. The claimant contended that the car had suffered extensive damages to a tune of Rs.1,53,000/- but the claim was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground (a) that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle to maintain a claim before the MACT; (b) that the quantum of claim is not proved.

3. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was sold by its registered owner to the claimant and the property in the goods has already been vested in the claimant. Secondly, the policy is a comprehensive policy and the second respondent is liable to meet the entire liability.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company argued that it is not the nature of policy that matters here, but it is entirely about the right of the appellant to sustain a claim. It remains on record as a set of indisputable facts that (a) the claimant is not a registered owner of the car and a claim petition cannot be maintained by one who is not the registered owner of the vehicle; (b) at any rate the amount claimed is not proved and a mere production of an estimate issued by the garage owner is not sufficient proof of the actuals, both as to the nature of the damage and as to the quantum of damages.

5. The fundamental point to be immediately investigated is on the question of maintaining a claim. Section 166(1) provides that :

(1) An application for compensation of the nature specified in subsection (1) of the Section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or

(d) by an agent duly authorised.

Sec.2(30) of the Act defines the owner. It defines :

"Owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

Should the definition of the word 'owner' as provided in Section 2(30), be imported into Section 166 of the MV Act that falls under Chapter XII ?

6. There are in effect two statutes that govern the sale of a motor vehicle : One, the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the other the Motor Vehicles Act. The transfer of property or vesting of the good in a property that signifies a sale of a good is the province of Sale of Goods Act, and according to it the property in the good is passed on to its purchaser when once the good is delivered to him, or when he is put in possession of the same, or when the good is left with the carrier to be delivered to him. The MV Act has not been offered a role there. The law on the aspect is too firmly settled that it hardly entertains a doubt or debate now. Motor Vehicles Act in effect takes a role post such vesting of property in a motor vehicle when it insists its registration, and this is essentially inten