IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2253 of 2007()
1. K.P.VINOD, SREEPADAMA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GIJI, KALARICKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
3. JYOTHY, D/O.GOPI,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :23/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2253 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)807/03.
The registered owner of the vehicle who is saddled with the
liability of reimbursement of the amount to the insurance
company has come up in appeal. It is specifically contended
by him that he had sold the vehicle to one Azeez on 19.9.00
and it is stated in paragraph 3 of his written statement. This
Azeez was not impleaded as a party and the question who
was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident was not
adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore the matter requires
reconsideration.
2. It has to be stated that being a third party the
insurance company is bound to pay compensation and get it
reimbursed from the registered owner for the reason it is in
his name the policy stands and the contract of insurance is
between him and the insurance company. This matter
M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007
-:2:-
precisely arose for consideration before a Division Bench of
this Court reported in Ashraf v. Fathima (2004 (2) KLT
598) and this Court held that,
“Here, the insured is still the registered
owner as admittedly, the appellant,
registered owner, did not inform the matter
of transfer to the insurance company and
insurance is not transferred. The insurance
company cannot recover it from the de facto
owner because there is no contractual
agreement between the de facto owner and
the insurance company. The insurance
company can recover it only from the
insured.”
3. So in the light of this decision and as the policy
stands in the name of the appellant the order passed by the
Tribunal for reimbursement of the amount by the registered
owner cannot be found fault with.
4. Now, a larger question arises for consideration.
The definition of the word ‘owner’ under Section 2(30) of the
Motor Vehicle’s Act takes in a person who by virtue of an
M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007
-:3:-
agreement of sale is in possession of the vehicle. It is
contended that under the sale of goods Act the divestiture of
title coupled with the transfer of possession and receipt of
consideration completes a transfer or sale of movable
property and Section 31 of the old Registration Act is only a
procedural formality for the change of registration. It has
been so held by a Division Bench of this Court as early as in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jameela Beevi
(1991 (1) KLT 832). Therefore, a question may arise that
if the proposed person is the owner in possession of the
property of the vehicle on the date of accident certainly he
would be liable to pay the amount to the registered owner for
the reason the registered owner under the terms of the
contract of insurance is paying the amount to the insurance
company. So this is a matter that requires adjudication.
5. In the result, the award passed is partly set aside
and the matter is remitted back for the purpose of
impleading the proposed person mentioned in paragraph 3 of
the written statement of the 2nd respondent and the Court
M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007
-:4:-
shall adjudicate whether the said person was the owner in
possession on the date of the accident and if it is so, has to
make provision for the registered owner to get
reimbursement of the amount which he is bound to pay
being a registered owner from the said person. The
appellant herein can take steps to implead this Azeez
mentioned in paragraph 2 and the matter be adjudicated
after hearing all concerned. Parties are directed to appear
before the Tribunal on 29.8.08.
As a breathing time, the recovery against the present
appellant be deferred for a period of two months.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-