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/-
