G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by a person who was the erstwhile owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident but whose name continued to be reflected in the Certificate of Registration (RC Book), when the accident took place. One Narayanasamy was riding TVS Champ motor vehicle along with one Subbaraj on Kandamanur to Kadamalikundu main road on 05.09.2002, when the third respondent herein, Rajkumar, riding his TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-57-6663 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said TVS Champ. On account of the injuries suffered in the said accident, the said Narayanasamy passed away. His wife and son/the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed M.C.O.P. No. 322 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam claiming compensation.

2. In paragraph 5 of the claim petition, the claimants fairly stated that the offending vehicle appeared to have been sold by the appellant herein in favour of the other respondents. Unfortunately, there was no insurance cover for the vehicle in question. The appellant pleaded that he had sold the vehicle in favour of Mr. Raja/the fourth respondent herein on 22.04.2002. Mr. Raja appears to have sold the same in favour of Jayaraman, who in turn sold it to Rajkumar @ Jakaiyan, who rode the vehicle at the time of accident. The appellant herein marked Ex. R.1 to prove his contention that he had already sold the vehicle. That the appellant was not the legal owner of the offending vehicle on the date when the accident took place was established beyond doubt. In fact, it has been conceded by the claimants themselves as evident from the averments in the claim petition. The Court below however directed the appellant herein along with the offending rider Rajkumar @ Jakaiyan to pay a sum of Rs. 5,70,756/- as compensation to the claimants with interest by its award dated 28.11.2008.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant alone filed this instant appeal. The third respondent herein has not chosen to challenge the award and he remained ex-parte in these proceedings also.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel for the claimants.

5. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the issue as regards the liability of an erstwhile owner who failed to get his name substituted in the RC book is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M., AIR 2001 SC 3939 : (2001) 8 SCC 748 : LNIND 2001 SC 2166. This decision was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in S.N. Shanmugam v. Shankarlal Jain, 2004 ACJ 1346 : LNIND 2002 MAD 1419 : (2003) 1 MLJ 380. He also placed reliance on two other decisions rendered by the learned Judges of this Court reported in Thangaraj v. Ameer Hussian and Others, 2009 (2) TN MAC 392 : (2009) 6 MLJ 653 and M. Duraisamy v. K. Balakrishnan and Another LNIND 2010 MAD 2217 : (2010) 6 MLJ 543. In the said decisions it has beer held that if the transferor did not comply with the formalities of transfer set out in Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and his name continued to be reflected as the recorded owner in the RC book, the transferor is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, in case the vehicle is involved in any accident. In other words, though he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle on account of having sold the same, he would still remain liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court should rather follow the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma and Others, AIR 2015 SC 290 : (2015) 3 SCC 679 : LNIND 2014 SC 979.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions. It would be useful to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines 'owner' as follows:

"(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and