P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the claimant.

2. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- against the respondents on the allegation that her husband deceased Galju died on 18.10.1981 while he was going on a cycle on account of a violent dash given by a truck No. MPJ-7314 driven by the respondent Hajari and owned by Mohanlal Rajput since deceased now represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in this appeal. The vehicle was insured in the name of Mohanlal with the Insurance Company (respondent No.6). It was, therefore, prayed that the compensation be awarded jointly and severally against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The owner and the driver filed a Joint written statement opposing the claim. They further submitted that on 12.1.1977, they had transferred the truck to Narendra Kumar Taneja and also handed over possession to him. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. While describing Mohanlal as late Mohanlal, they did not specifically deny Mohanlal's death around June, 1978. The Insurance Company filed written statement opposing the claim. By amendment, it was pleaded that Mohanlal Rajput died on 21.6.1978. He could not obtain the insurance policy. The covered note has been obtained by misrepresentation and is void and in effective. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable since there was no contract subsisting between the deceased Mohanlal and the Insurance Company.

3. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,500/- against the driver Hajari alone and declined to pass award against the respondents. Hence this appeal.

4. The documents placed on record show that the name of Mohanlal continues to be recorded as registered owner and even the registering authority has issued demands of goods tax, in the name of Mohanlal. The registration book is Ex.P.1 which stands in the name of Mohanlal. The demand notices of goods tax are Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 is the certificate of Insurance for the period 20.2.1984 to 19.2.1985 of truck, No. MPJ-7314 and the name of the insured is Mohanlal Rajput. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the cover note standing in the name of Mohanlal Rajput and the date of expiry of insurance, commencing from 26.3.1981, is 25.3.1982. Thus, it is clear that even though Mohanlal died in the year 1978 but the name of Mohanlal as registered owner in the records of the registering authority and as insured owner of the truck in the records of the Insurance Company continues. It may also be mentioned here that in the claim petition, in para 2(a), it was specifically pleaded that Mohanlal died in June, 1978. Yet, the Insurance Company continued to renew the policy in the name of Mohanlal and issued the cover note even after acquiring knowledge of his death.

5. The first question for decision is whether the respondents 1 to 5, who are legal representatives of Mohanlal Rajput, were rightly exonerated of their liability. The Tribunal disbelieved their defence that they had transferred the vehicle to Narendra Taneja. All the same, since Narendra Rajput as NAW No. 2 stated that he had purchased the truck from Narendra Taneja and that Hajari (NAW 3) was his driver. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5, were held not liable. This finding of the Tribunal is inconsistent. Once it disbelieved the sale to Narendra Taneja the Tribunal could not have accepted the statements of Narendra Rajput and Hajari that there was any genuine transfer to Narendra Rajput. It may be mentioned here that Narendra Taneja did not enter the witness-box. In my opinion, the story of transfer is pure concoction of void liability. Had there beep any such, transfer, the registration book could not continue in the name of the original owner. Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, prescribed certain essential steps to be taken by the transferer and the transferee. Since no proof has been adduced