Loading...

Hassan vs Ijas on 9 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Hassan vs Ijas on 9 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 143 of 2008()


1. HASSAN, S/O.ABDU, AYANGATTU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. IJAS, S/O.HAMEED, KIZHAKE VALAPPIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRAKASAN, S/O.GOPALAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE,

3. BASHEER, S/O.PAKRAN, AGED 24 YEARS,

4. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

5. RAMESAN, S/O.SIVANANDAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :09/12/2008

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                       =====================
                         MACA No.143 OF 2008
                       =====================

                Dated this the 9th day of December 2008

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)No.390 of 1999. The claimant, a

pedestrian sustained injuries in a road accident when he was hit by a jeep

driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The Tribunal found that

the accident took place on account of his negligence and fixed a

compensation of Rs.36,706/- with 6% interest and directed the 4th

respondent to produce the cheque. It is against that decision, the 4th

respondent has come up in appeal.

2. Admittedly there is no insurance coverage for the vehicle on the

date of accident, i.e. 21.12.1998. The specific contention of the 4th

respondent in the claim petition is that though the registration stands in his

name he had transferred the vehicle to the 5th respondent Ramesan and

therefore he cannot be made liable to pay compensation and a further

discussion in paragraph 12 of the award would indicate that Ramesan

claims to be in possession of the vehicle till 30.6.1997 and he has

transferred the vehicle to one Musthafa on the said date. The appellant’s

MACA 143/2008 -:2:-

specific contention is that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of

Ramesan, viz., 5th respondent on 2.1.1996. The accident had taken place on

21.12.1998. So, from the contention raised by the 5th respondent, it is

admitted that at least till 30.6.1997 he was in possession of the vehicle and

therefore the contention of the appellant that he was not the owner of the

vehicle on the date of the accident appears to be correct from the specific

pleading of the 5th respondent. But the 5th respondent would contend that he

had transferred the vehicle to one Musthafa and along with the

memorandum of appeal an annexure is produced, wherein the vehicle is

taken possession by one Kunjammed, s/o Moosa, who claims to be the

owner by agreement. It has to be remembered that so far as the transfer of a

motor vehicle is concerned, it is governed by the provisions of the Sale of

Goods Act. When there is receipt of consideration and passing of possession

and divestiture of title, the sale is complete and the provisions under the

Motor Vehicles Act regarding transfer of ownership is only a subsequent

necessity under the Motor Vehicles Act and it is not the transfer of

registration that confers title but it is the sale that confers title. I do not

know why the Tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant, who even

according to the 5th respondent in the claim petition was not the owner of

the vehicle on 21.12.1998. The 5th respondent would contend that

MACA 143/2008 -:3:-

Musthafa is the owner and Annexure A1 produced along with the appeal

would show that one Kunjammed, S/o.Moosa is the owner of the vehicle

as per the agreement. So, the matter requires impleadment of additional

parties and further reconsideration. So necessarily, in order to fix the

liability on the person on the ground that who is the owner of the vehicle

the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, the award under challenge is

set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of

the question, who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and

after recording the finding on that question, the Tribunal is directed to

order payment of compensation by him to the claimant. Till that time,

whatever amount is in court deposit it shall lie in court deposit and as it is

seen that the insurance company is not liable for want of policy the question

of fixing the liability on the insurance company may not arise at all. For this

limited purpose, the matter is remitted back and the claimant is directed to

implead this Musthafa and Kunjammed and the Tribunal has to permit the

parties to file pleadings and additional pleadings and produce documents

and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

MACA 143/2008 -:4:-

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.1.2009.

MACA is disposed of as above.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information