1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 832 OF 2007 (Rajendra Vithoba Nival .v. Smt. Mankarna Vithobaji Gadai and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri K.N. Shukul, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 21ST JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal. The claimants had claimed compensation on account of death of husband of claimant No.1 who was said to be a Palmist. He was travelling in a tractor which met with an accident. He suffered fatal injuries. The claimants have, therefore, claimed compensation. The petition was resisted by the respondent including the present appellant. The present appellant was original owner of the tractor in which the deceased was travelling. He had agreed to sell the said vehicle to respondent No.7-Sunil. There was a written agreement. Subsequent to that there is another agreement in the year 1990 by which it 2 was agreed that if the vehicle meets with an accident before actual transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent No.7-Sunil, the respondent No.7-Sunil would be liable to reimburse the original owner i.e. the present appellant. The learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was Rs.1500/- per month and he was 40 years old and, therefore, he applied multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of rupees two lacs. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is being preferred. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in any case the liability cannot be fastened on the present appellant since the vehicle was in actual possession of present respondent No.7 and he was plying it. He submitted that although the vehicle was not transferred in the name of present respondent No.7, he ought to be considered as an actual owner of the vehicle and the award, if any could have been passed against him. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation .v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others (reported in 1997 SAR (Civil) SC 723). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the expression “owner” must be given wider meaning and must include 3 in actual possession and control of the vehicle and who actually plies it. In the instant case, the decree has not only been passed against the registered owner i.e. the present appellant but also against the respondent No.7- Sunil who had agreed to purchase the said vehicle and who was actually using and plying the vehicle. The present appellant cannot escape the liability being a registered owner and who had not transferred the title of the vehicle as yet in favour of the respondent No.7-Sunil. In view of this, the appellant cannot escape the liability. The learned Counsel submitted that the Court had applied a higher multiplier and, therefore, the compensation amount errs on higher side. After having considered the fact that the deceased was 40 years old and he has left behind four minor children, a wife and two aged parents, there was a justification in applying the multiplier of 15. The dependency is certainly large and children are minors. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Execution of the decree is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE *rrg.