R.N. Misra, J.

1. These are appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the owner of a jeep bearing registration number ORS 2510 against the award of compensation in two separate claim cases instituted under Section 110A of the Act.

2. The brief facts relevant for the appeals are these: The Jeep ORS 2510 belonged to the State of Orissa and it was disposed of by auction sale in June, 1973 and Appellant purchased the same. According to the Appellant, he effected repairs, brought it to a running condition but was not driving the same as the ownership had not been transferred. He had kept the jeep in a shed and had kept the keys with him. This jeep is alleged to have been driven by Appellants brother Sitaram in the afternoon of 13-7-1973. Near about Ainthapali area in the town of Sambalpur, deceased Laxminarayan Pattnaik who was then working in the Family Planning Centre at Ainthapali was returning home from the office riding a cycle. He was on his extreme left of the road. The jeep came at a high speed from opposite direction and knocked him down. It is alleged that it was being driven rashly as also negligently. The cycle came under the wheels of the vehicle and the deceased Laxminarayan sustained multiple injuries on his person, immediately lost his sense and remained as an indoor patient at the Sadar Headquarters Hospital from the time of incident till 25-7-1973 when he succumbed to the injuries. Two sets of claims were laid for compensation--one by the dependant paraents and the other by the widow and children of Laxminarayan. The application by the parents was registered as Claim Case No. 1 of 1974 while that of the other dependants was registered as Claim Case No. 30 of 1973.

3. Sitaram, the alleged driver of the vehicle, did not enter contest. The vehicle was admittedly not insured. The claim was contested by the District Collector of Sambalpur representing the State of Orissa and also by the alleged transferee. The State took the stand that ownership of the vehicle had been parted with long before the incident and, therefore, the State had no liability to meet. The alleged owner contended that he had not become owner of the jeep in the absence of transfer of the certificate of registration. His vehicle was not being plied and he had taken due care to see that the vehicle does not come on the road until the papers were regularized.

4. The claimants examined seven witnesses in all. The owner of the vehicle examined himself. On the basis of the evidence placed before the Tribunal, he fixed up the compensation at Rs. 3,732/- for the parents and at Rs. 26,000/- for the widow and the children of the deceased and directed that the compensation be recovered from the present Appellant and his brother (Respondent No. 7).

5. Mr. Mohapatra for the Appellant contends:

(i) the finding that the Appellant was owner of the jeep at the relevant time is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as ownership had not yet been transferred and appropriate entries in the registration book had not been made ;

(ii) on the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the Appellant was liable for the compensation. At any rate, Appellant having taken due precaution and the vehicle having been taken un-authorisedly from his possession and the incident taking place thereafter, he cannot be saddled with liability ; and

(iii) the compensation awarded is excessive.

6. In this Court, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for receiving the judgment in C.R. Case No. 796 of 1973 as additional evidence. That case was instituted by the local police for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against Sitaram for the same incident and ended in acquittal on a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish that Sitaram was driving the vehicle. The judgment was rendered after the award. I am prepared to admit the document by way of additional evidence. It would accordingly now be marked as Ext. A on the side of the opposite party (Appellant). Even though the document is made a part of the record, appeallant is not entitled to make any use of it in support of his contentions raised in the appeal, because the document cannot be used for any other purpose than showing that there was a criminal case against Sitaram for driving the vehicle and had ended in acquittal on a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge.

7. The Appellant has himself admitted in his deposition:

...I purchased the jeep ORS 2510 in auction sale in June, 1973. After repair, I kept it with me at Burla....

In cross-examination he stated:

I do not remember the date on which I purchased the jeep in June, 1973, and took delivery of the jeep in March, (sic. July) 1973. About a month after the date of auction, I took delivery of the jeep. I purchased the jeep to transport articles. I wanted to use it for commercial purposes to earn money. I purchased the jeep to transport articles from Attabira to Burla. The jeep was repaired in the garage of Sahit Rout at Sambalpur and the jeep was kept at the garage for about one and half months. On the date I took delivery of the jeep I took it to the garage for repair. The jeep was not in running condition when I purchased it. I cannot say what was the defect in the vehicle for which it was not able to run....

The evidence of the Appellant proves beyond doubt that the transaction was complete and on payment of the price, delivery of the vehicle had been obtained. Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for registration of motor vehicles. Section 31 thereof deals with transfer of ownership and provides:

(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred:

(a) the transferor shall, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee ;

(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

(2) ....

It is thus clear that the contractual transfer of ownership has to precede the application for transfer of registration under the section and mere failure to report the transfer does not interdict the passing of the ownership of the vehicle to the transferee though it may give rise to penalties under the law. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M.J. Velu Mudaliar and Anr. v. Sri Venkateswar Finance Corporation and Ors. : AIR 1971 A.P. 63, and the case of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Muthuswami Goundar v. Thulasi Ammal 1970 A.C.J. 18, support this conclusion. Certain observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Secretary, Orissa Cooperative Insurance Society Limited, Cuttack, etc. v. Bhagaban Sahu and Ors.1971 A.C.J. 49, apparently support Mr. Mohapatras stand, but the conclusion reached in that case was one of fact on the materials available on the record. While one of the parties pleaded that the ownership in the truck had been transferred, the other denied and neither party examined himself in support of the specific plea. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that ownership as shown in the certificate of registration had to be accepted. In the case of Phul Bus Service (Regd.) Rampura v. Financial Commissioner and Ors. 1968 A.C.J. 57, the Punjab High Court has taken the view that recording of transfer on the registration certificate is not a pre-requisite for passing of title of ownership.

I have already quoted the evidence of the transferee-Appellant and in view of his own admission, there can be no doubt that the owner of the vehicle on the relevant date was the Appellant and not the State of Orissa represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Sambalpur. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly did not fix the liability of the State in the matter.

8. In both the claim petitions it had been specifically pleaded that Sitaram Chou-dhury was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Sitaram had notice of the proceeding and yet chose not to contest. In the written statement of the Appellant, it has been pleaded:

That Sitaram Choudhury has no concern with the opposite party No. 2. He was never the driver of the opposite party No. 2. He was never engaged by opposite party No. 2 to drive the jeep in question. Hence for negligence of Sitaram Choudhury, if any, the opposite party No. 2 is not vicariously liable.

That after taking the vehicle in question in auction sale, the opposite party No. 2 had kept the vehicle standing at Burla as the ownership of vehicle was with Government, the opposite party No. 1. On 13-7-73 the opposite party No. 2 found his vehicle Jeep O.R.S. No. 2510 missing from Burla.

The opposite party No. 2 searched for the same and later he heard that vehicle in question has been seized in an accident case. The opposite party No. 2 went to Sadar, Police Station informed the matter and brought the vehicle in question on zima.

In the written statement, therefore, there is no clear plea that Sitaram had not been driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. The Appellant who examined himself as P.W. 2 has stated:

At Sambalpur, I learnt that my brother Sitaram was driving the jeep when it met with the accident. I had not entrusted Sitaram Choudhury to drive the jeep. I never engaged Sitaram Choudhury as my driver.

In view of the pleadings and the evidence of the Appellant himself, I would accept the finding of the learned Tribunal that it was Sitaram who drive the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Appellant has denied vicarious liability by contending that he had not entrusted the vehicle to Sitaram for plying and as a fact the vehicle was not being plied at all as its papers were not yet regularized. In his own words, Appellant has said:

I kept the jeep at Mahatabnagar about four furlongs away from my house under a shed. The jeep was kept away from my house unguarded for about two to three months. When I found my jeep missing, I could learn from some mechanic that the jeep can move with direct connection without using key. I do not remember the name of the person who told me the same....

As against this evidence, two witnesses on the claimants side have deposed that the jeep was being run by the Appellant before the incident. P.W. 4 was an accountant in the office of the Family Planning Training Centre. He deposed:

... Since about one to two months prior to accident I had seen the jeep ORS 2510 plying on the road as the driver used to bring the jeep to a tea-stall near our office....

No cross-examination was made on this aspect. P.W. 7, a vegetable grower has deposed:

... About two to three years back, I saw the vehicle on different dates within a period of 2 to 3 months and that is in the year 1973. I saw the vehicle on several dates in May and July, 1973. In June and July, 1973, I saw jeep No. ORS 2510 on several dates in the Burla market, On 13-7-73 at about 12 Oclock I saw jeep No. ORS 2510 in Burla market taking gas cylinders. I saw the vehicle in front of East Coast Gas Company....

There is no justification to disbelieve these two witnesses. I would accordingly agree with the contention of counsel for the Respondents that the assertion of the Appellant that the vehicle was not plying is not true. After repairs had been effected following Appellants purchase, he was as a fact using the vehicle for commercial purpose for which on his own admission, he had purchased it.

It follows, therefore, that the Appellant had been plying the vehicle and his explanation that while he was keeping the key of the jeep, the driver had made direct connection without the assistance of the key and without authority of the Appellant had taken out the vehicle, cannot be accepted. The Motor Vehicle Inspector must have checked the vehicle and if there was truth in Appellants stand that the vehicle had been driven without the key of the engine and by joining the wires directly, the Inspector must have noticed it and if his report had been produced, it would have helped the Appellant in his stand. As the report has been withheld, necessary adverse inference should be drawn against the Appellant and his contention that the jeep had been taken away by the driver without the key which Appellant was holding cannot be accepted. The tribunal rightly found vicarious liability of the Appellant in the circumstances indicated above.

9. The last question for consideration is as to the quantum of compensation. Laxminarayan at the time of his death was aged 38 years. He was employed in the Regional Family Planning Training Centre at Sambalpur in the scale of pay of Rs. 185-300/- and was drawing total emoluments of Rs 456/- including Dearness Allowance and additional Dearness Allowance, etcetera. The deceaseds father has been examined as P.W. 6, who himself is a pension-holder. He has admitted that the expenses of the deceased for his own purposes were about Rs. 160/- per month. I am inclined to estimate the contribution of the deceased at Rs. 200/- to the family. P.W. 4, the accountant of the establishment of the deceased, has stated:

... Laxminarayans family will receive family pension @ Rs. 120/- p.m. for seven years and Rs. 60/- p.m. thereafter.

This pension became payable on account of the untimely death of Laxminarayan and has, therefore, to be taken into account in quantifying compensation. Laxminarayan had twenty years of service left if he did not succumb to the injuries. For the first seven years, his loss of contribution to the family on account of his death should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and for the remaining thirteen years at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month. Calculated at this rate, the total amount works out at Rs. 28,560/-. Ordinarily in view of lump sum payment, the compensation is slashed by one-sixth taking into consideration uncertainties of life, the fact that the payment of the entire amount is made at a time, etc. Slashing the compensation by one-sixth it works out at Rs. 23,800/-. There is evidence that Laxminarayan had a Life Insurance Policy the proceeds whereof became payable immediately on account of death. The G.P. Fund account closed and dues thereunder also became payable. Taking an over-all picture of the matter, I am prepared to fix the net compensation at a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand). Out of it, Kailash Pattnaik, the father of the deceased for himself and his wife would be entitled to net sum of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) and the balance Rs. 17,000/- (seventeen thousand) would be payable to the widow and the other dependants of the deceased. The liability for the amount shall be jointly and severally of Appellant and Sitaram.

10. Both the appeals are partly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.