JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad dated 5th February, 1996 awarding a compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,34,400/- on account of death of the deceased at the age of 27 years leaving aside wife and children. The appeal has been preferred by the owner by saying that on the fateful day i.e. 6th January, 1993 he was not the owner of the vehicle. The sale of the vehicle was done on 15th November, 1992 in favour of one Sri Rajendra Prasad. However, court disbelieved the story on the ground that the vehicle was not registered in the name of Sri Rajendra Prasad on the fateful day. That apart, the learned Counsel also took a point that the amount of compensation is on the higher side since as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1923 the salary of skilled handloom worker is Rs. 632/- per month but the Tribunal assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month. In support of his case, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has cited two judgments reported in 2003 (3) T.A.C. 663 (All.) (Chhedi Prasad v. Kamrunnisha and Anr.) to establish that transfer of ownership of the vehicle is complete after letter of transfer and delivery of possession on the same date. He further relied upon 1998 (1) T.A.C. 42 (S.C.) (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and Ors.) to establish possessor of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation for the accident. However, such principle can not be applicable to this case where the factual dispute is otherwise.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended before this Court that the paper book contains a notice being dated 17th July, 1994 notice under registered post which was served by the concerned Advocate of Sri Rajendra Prasad mentioning about transfer of the vehicle on 15th November, 1992. Therefore, he contended that if the vehicle has already been transferred on 15th November, 1992 what was the occasion of writing this letter on 17th July, 1994 to the said transferee is unknown to him.
3. We have carefully considered the analysis and observation of the court below We found that the court below had disbelieved that the ownership of the vehicle was in favour of the alleged transferee on the fateful day. According to us, the sale can not be construed as an appropriate sale to attract the liability of the appellant/owner unless it is proved beyond doubt as factually available in the case of Chhedi Prasad (Supra). Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has referred 2004 (1) T.A.C. 220 (All.) (Abdul Wasi v. Bhairamdeen Alias Bachhi and Ors.) and said that a Division Bench of this High Court held that ownership of a vehicle is defined under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which means the person/s in whose name the vehicle is registered. Therefore, registration is essential part to prove transfer unless it is proved beyond doubt as in the case of Chhedi Prasad (Supra). In (S.N. Shanmugham v. Shankarlal Jain and Anr.) it was held by a Division Bench of Madras High Court that so long as necessary corrections are made in the R.C. Book by the competent registering authority, in so far as the third parties are concerned, the transfer still confined to remain liable as his same continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. In S.N.Shanmugham (Supra) the Court followed the laying down ratio of the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC) (Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M.) which speaks that the title and/or ownership of the vehicle can be transferred by the appropriate documentation which was required to be done but unless or until it was entered into the record of the Regional Transport Authority as owner the original owner can not escape from the liability.
4. So far as consideration of wages of the deceased is concerned, although the provision of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was applied to the tune of Rs. 632/- per month but the court below rightly analysed by adding certain amount as take home amount of a person being hand loom worker and fixed at Rs. 1200/- per month. Therefore, coming to conclusion and awarding Rs. 1,34,400/- is not only lower side but also proper. Thus, we can not interfere with the order impugned. Hence, we dismiss the appeal without imposing any cost.
5. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. So far as the cross-objection for enhancement of the amount is concerned, it appears to us that the same has been filed only on 3rd July, 2007. According to us, it is a belated enthusiastic approach on the part of the claimant which can not be entertained. Therefore, in totality we also do not find any reason to entertain such cross-objection and is dismissed without imposing any cost.
V.K. Shukla, J.
6. I agree.