The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is complete upon the contractual transfer of ownership and delivery of possession, and the registration certificate is not a document of title but merely evidence of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - The liability of the appellant under the award passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been challenged by him in this appeal.

2. The facts leading to the limited controversy of the parties are as follows: The present respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, being the parents, widow and children of deceased Kalu Sahu for awarding compensation due to his death occurred in an automobile accident. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The original owner of the vehicle was the present appellant. It is alleged that he transferred the vehicle to the present respondent No. 9 on 20.2.1983. The accident having taken place on 16.7.1983, the Accidents Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation at Rs. 90,000/- felt that the present respondent No. 9 being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. In proof of the transfer of ownership the present appellant had filed a receipt executed by respondent No. 9 stating that he has received the vehicle bearing registration No. ORU 2728 from Purusottam Mishra, appellant, on payment of Rs. 40,000, the agreed cost. Respondent No. 9 preferred M.A. No. 301 of 1986 in this court. During hearing of the appeal it was urged on behalf of respondent No. 9 that he could not participate in the hearing of the case before the Accidents Claims Tribunal for want of proper opportunity and the default committed was beyond his control. This court on a consideration of the circumstances relevant to the aforesaid contention came to a conclusion that the liability of present respondent No. 9 would depend upon several factors like policy of insurance, if any, effective transfer of the vehicle by the present appellant to respondent No. 9, etc. Being of the opinion that no sufficient evidence in this regard has been placed for reaching a definite conclusion, the case was remanded to the Tribunal for readjudication after affording opportunity to all concerned to place materials before the Tribunal. So far as the receipt dated 20.2.1983 is concerned, which has been marked as Exh. A, this court in the said appeal had the occasion to consider the said document and by the time it was placed before the court, the date had been changed from 20.2.1983 to 20.8.1983. This court observed that the change was very much apparent from a bare look of Exh. A itself because the figure 8' on the date given below the signature 'P. Parida' (present respondent No. 9) is in an ink different from that used in the scribe of the document itself. This court directed an enquiry to be made as to under what circumstances the interpolation was possible and by whom and further wanted necessary action in the matter. On receipt of the case on remand, the Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the case afresh and refixed the compensation at Rs. 90,000/-. Though the insurance company was noticed in the matter, the particulars of insurance policy were not disclosed by any of the parties for which reason the Tribunal could not fix the liability with the insurance company. The Tribunal, however, considered that since the present appellant was the owner of the vehicle and his name continued in the registration certificate until it was changed to the name of the present respondent No. 9 with effect from 27.9.1983 the present appellant should be considered as the owner of the vehicle till that date and the accident having taken place prior to such change of ownership in the registration certificate, the liability to pay the compensation on account of the accident should also be saddled against him. The Tribunal after examining some persons in charge of handling the record could not fix the responsibility as regards the interpolation in the date of execution of the receipt, Exh. A.

3. The dispute in this appeal filed by the present appellant is limited to the extent as to whether the present respondent No. 9 was the owner of the vehicle on