The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner of a vehicle continues to be liable until the name of the transferee is substituted in the record of the R.T.O, and the definition of 'owner' under the Act is exhaustive.

( 1 ) INVOKING the appellate jurisdiction of this court under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), Aaditya Khare, non-applicant no. 1, has challenged the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 20. 2. 1998, passed by Fourth Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rewa in Claim Case No. 24 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case, as have been unfolded, in nutshell are that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have filed a petition under section 166 of the Act stating that they are the legal representatives of deceased Sudama prasad. On 26. 7. 1991 deceased Sudama prasad along with his brother Shiv Kumar was going on foot by the side of the road on national Highway 7. When he reached near village Baila, Brijendra Kumar, respondent no. 5, driving motor cycle No. MKA 4563 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Baila and dashed the same against him. Sudama Prasad sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to P. S. Chorhata where the report of the accident was lodged. Thereafter, he was shifted to G. M. H. Hospital, Rewa where his condition went on deteriorating and despite all the possible efforts to save him, he succumbed to the injuries on 27. 9. 1991 at 8 p. m.

( 3 ) THE claimants stated that deceased sudama Prasad was aged about 22 years at the time of his death. He was a very good cook and was working in Patel Hotel as cook. He was earning Rs. 1,000 per month by way of salary. He also used to get his breakfast and food in the hotel and a sum of Rs. 5 per day by way of allowance. He was also looking after agriculture and earning Rs. 5,000 per annum. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 8,01,000. It was alleged by the claimants that the non-applicant No. 1appellant was the registered owner of the offending motor cycle which was sold by him to Ramdas Tripathi, non-applicant No. 2-respondent No. 4.

( 4 ) THE claim was contested by non-applicants. The respondent No. 5, who is alleged to have been driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, has stated that on the relevant date he was going towards Rewa. His cousin was sitting on the motor cycle as pillion rider. A jeep and a truck were coming from Baila side at very high speed. They were not prepared to give side to each other. As a result of which the jeep turned towards the side of the road. Deceased Sudama Prasad was trying to cross the road from the wrong side and he was dashed by the truck. On being dashed by the truck, he fell down by the side of the road and received serious injuries. He lodged report of the accident at Police station Chorhata, but no action was taken on his report. He stated that he is not responsible for the accident.

( 5 ) THE appellant pleaded that before the date of the accident the vehicle in question was sold by him to non-applicant No. 2-respondent No. 4 for total consideration of rs. 12,000 and the possession of the vehicle was delivered to him on 22. 6. 1991. Therefore, after 22. 6. 1991 the non-applicant No. 2-respondent No. 4 is the owner of vehicle and is responsible for compensation. The claimants are not entitled to any compensation from him. The appellant has further pleaded that the amount of compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive.

( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues and recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was driven by Brijendra kumar, non-applicant No. 3-respondent no. 5, in a rash and negligent manner, who dashed the same against the deceased as a result of which the deceased suffered serious injuries and later on he died. The tribunal also recorded a finding that as the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle he is responsible for the compensation. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the non-applicant No. 2-respondent No. 4 is not responsible for the compensation as it could not be proved that the information regarding the sale of motor cycle was communi