The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is complete only when the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred, and in the absence of a different intention, the rules in Sections 20 to 24 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, apply to ascertain the intention of the parties.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The appellants are the Claimants who are the heirs of deceased Ganeshlal, who died in a motor accident on 3-2-1982.

2. The Claims Tribunal passed an award in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- jointly and severally against the respondent No. 2, Bhaiyalal driver, and the respondent No. 4, Dallisingh. The Claims Tribunal did not pass any award against the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Company, on the ground that the motor vehicle was not insured. The Claims Tribunal also did not pass any award against the respondent No. 1, Dhanraj Singh, accepting his case that he, only about a month before the date of accident, on 1-1-1982 vide Documents Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3 had transferred the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Truck No. M.R.W. 5973 in favour of the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5, Mafiraj Singh, was the person on the vehicle, on behalf of the owner and, therefore, no award was passed against him.

3. The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, Shri Alok Aradha, assailed the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that an award should have also been passed against the respondent No. 1, Dhanraj Singh, as he was the real owner of the vehicle involved, but only to avoid his liability ante-dated documents of transfer of vehicle were manipulated by him. The second ground urged is on the question of quantum. It is urged that the deceased Ganeshlal was a young man of thirty-eight years and as a barber was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month and on that basis the award of Rs; 20,000/- passed is too low and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

4. The first question that falls for consideration before us is whether the respondent No. 1, Dhanraj Singh, can also be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. Learned Counsel Shri L.S. Beghel, appearing for him, contended that the moveable property can be transferred by only delivery of possession and even on payment of part of price. It was argued that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the respondent No. 1, Dhanraj Singh, and the respondent No. 4, Dallisingh, that such a transfer was made. In this respect it is argued that the respondent No. 4, Dallisingh, examined as N. A.W. No. 4 before the Claims Tribunal has accepted the fact of transfer of the vehicle in his favour and there are no circumstances to disbelieve him as he claimed ownership to the vehicle and did not disown his liability on that count.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the testimony of the respondent No. 4, Dalli Singh, (N.A.W. No. 4) and of the respondent No. 1, Dhanraj Singh, examined as N. A. W. No. 5 in the case. Dhanraj Singh states that the registered owner of the vehicle was one Sangram Singh, from whom he purchased it. Dhanraj Singh did not get his name registered under the previsions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He admits that the agreed price was Rs. 21,000/- out of which Rs. 10,100/- were paid by Dallisingh and for the rest instalments were fixed of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He also admits that he himself is Sarpanch and Dallisingh is Panch and they were intimate. He further admits that he could not get the vehicle registered in the name of Dallisingh as he himself was not a registered owner. He also admitted that the balance price of vehicle was received by him in small amounts and he did not give any receipt for the same.

6. The respondent No. 4, so-called subsequent owner of the vehicle was examined as N.A.W. No. 4. He admits in his cross-examination that he has not done in the past any business of running a vehicle on hire. He runs a small Kirana Shop. So far as the source of money for purchasing the vehicle is concerned, he says that he had sold one cow for Rs. 1,000/- but neither remembers the name of the purchaser nor has produced any receipt for the same. He also says that from Kirana Shop he had saved about Rs. 7000-8000. The remaining amount he says that he borrowed from several persons in the