1. The presumption of ownership in favor of the registered owner of a vehicle can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of a transfer of ownership. 2. An agreement to sell a vehicle without full consideration and without informing the Transport Authority or the insurance company does not divest the insured of ownership and does not relieve the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation for an accident occurring during the period of cover.

R.K. Varma, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the award dated 12-7-1982 made by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Indore in Claim Case No. 214/79, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 27,300/- to the claimant in respect of his injuries with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:--

On 22-9-79 while the claimant Ghisalal was going on his cycle from Depalpur to his village Khajariya, he was hit and run over by the truck bearing Registration No. MPE 1405 belonging to respondent No. 3 Kailash-chandra. The truck had passed over the right leg of the claimant causing grievous injuries and the claimant's leg had to be emputated below the knee.

3. The claimant filed the instant claim petition on 27-11-1979 joining as non-applicants the driver of the offending truck Nihalsingh and the Insurance Company with which the said truck stood insured during the material period covering the date of the accident. Later, by amendment made on 28-4-1981, respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra was joined as the third non-applicant, being the owner of the truck in question on the date of the accident.

4. The respondent driver Nihalsingh appeared through counsel on four dates of hearing and thereafter remained absent and was proceeded against ex parte since 13-12-1980. The respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra, owner of the truck, was made a party by amendment dated 28-4-1981 but he did not appear even after service of notice on him and the case proceeded ex parte against him also since 14-7-1980. No written statement was filed either on behalf of the driver, non-applicant No. 1 or the owner non-applicant No. 3.

5. The non-applicant No. 2, Insurance Co., alone entered appearance and resisted the claim. It was alleged by the Insurance Company that non-applicant No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck in question because he had already sold it to the non-applicant No. 1 Nihalsingh driver, prior to the date of the accident without intimation to the Insurance Company in that regard.

6. After trial, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, adduced in the case by the claimant and the non-applicant Insurance Company found that the non-applicant Nihalsingh was driving the said truck on the date of the accident, and the truck stood insured with the Insurance Company during the relevant time. But the learned Tribunal found that the non-applicant No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the said truck during the relevant time and this finding is under challenge in this appeal.

7. The learned Tribunal held that the accident leading to amputation of right leg and permanent disability of the claimant-injured was as a rest of rash as neglient driving of the truck in question and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 27,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petitiori against the non-applicant driver Nihalsingh only and rejected the claim as against other two non-applicants namely, the Insurance Company and the owner of the truck.

8. Being aggrieved by the findings of the learned Tribunal and the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the claimant Ghisalal filed this appeal.

9. During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant injured Ghisalal died and his legal representatives have been brought on record on 26-7-1985.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in finding that the insured respondent No. 3 Kailashchandra was not the owner of the truck in question on the date of the accident and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company which had insured Kailashchandra in respect of the truck in question for the period covering the accident was not liable.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has contended that after the death of the claimant-injured Ghisalal, the right to sue