By the Court.—This appeal is directed against award dated 14.12.2017 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court No. 1 Sitapur. The claim petition has been dismissed.

2. Perusal of the award indicates that the main issue framed for adjudication is whether Vishwapal Bharti died on account of turning turtle of the tractor trolley owned and driven by Ramhet s/o Nandram (respondent) on 24.1.2017.

It is evident from the award that registration number of the tractor trolley was not mentioned by the appellant claimant. Registered owner of the tractor trolley was not proved by the appellant/claimants. There is contradictory evidence in regard to the fact whether Ramhet was driving the tractor trolley. Under the circumstances, the tribunal has reached the conclusion to the effect that Vishwapal Bharti died in an accident, however, there is no evidence to prove that Ramhet was owner of the tractor or was driving the tractor. It has further been indicated that Ramhet has been falsely implicated because of previous enmity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has been confronted by us with the finding and has been asked to show from a single document which would establish the registration number of the tractor and the fact that the tractor was owned by Ramhet.

Learned counsel has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any evidence to that effect.

4. We have taken notice of the particular fact that even registration certificate of the tractor, which allegedly was involved in the accident, has neither been brought on record nor has been proved. The ownership of the tractor of Ramhet has not been proved. This is a strange case in which registration number of the motor vehicle allegedly involved in the accident has not even been mentioned.

5. In a recent decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 6.2.2018 in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others Civil Appeal No. 1427 of 2018 arising out of SLP (c) No. 18943 of 2016, in Para 12, the following has been held :

“12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who,for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the 'owner'. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the First respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.” (emphasised by us)

It would not be out of place to refer to the exact definition of Section 2(30) o