IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 303 of 2003(B)
1. T.D.JOSEPH, WRONGLY WRITTEN AS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UTHAMAN GOVINDAN, NALPATHANCHIL,
... Respondent
2. SALIKUMAR @ SASI SA/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
For Petitioner :SRI.A.ANTONY
For Respondent :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :09/08/2007
O R D E R
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J
-------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.303 of 2003
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
First respondent in O.P.(MV) No.2406/1995 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam who was impleaded as the owner of the
offending vehicle is the appellant. First respondent in this appeal filed Original
Petition claiming compensation against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. It
was averred that while the first respondent was travelling in an autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KL 5 A/8296 it capsized and he sustained injuries. It was
alleged that the appellant was the owner of the autorickshaw and the second
respondent was the driver. Insurer was impleaded as the third respondent.
Appellant contended that he sold the vehicle to one T.D. Thankachan on
20.12.2003 and he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and
Shri Thankachan was also a necessary party. Third respondent insurer contended
that it was not liable to indemnify the insured as there was violation of policy
conditions. Negligence alleged was disputed. Quantum of compensation claimed
was denied. Tribunal in spite of the specific contention raised by the appellant
that he sold the vehicle to Thankachan did not direct the first respondent to
implead Thankachan also as a party to the proceedings. Appellant produced
Exts.B1 to B8 documents to prove his contention that he sold the vehicle to
Thankachan. Tribunal took a view that since the appellant was the insured he
MACA No.303/2003 -: 2 :-
was the registered owner of the vehicle and liable to pay compensation.
2. In this appeal the appellant filed I.A.No.1074/2003 to implead
Thankachan as additional fourth respondent. It was allowed and Thankachan was
impleaded as the additional fourth respondent in the appeal. The only question
arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was correct in
finding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation.
3. Appellant produced Exts.B3 agreement for sale. He produced
Ext.B4 kaicheet to show that after the accident it was Thankachan who got the
vehicle released from the Police Station. Appellant also produced Exts.B5 and
B6 to show that it was Thankachan who furnished the details of the driver.
Ext.B7 is a letter written by the appellant to the Joint RTO intimating the transfer
of the vehicle. Ext.B8 is the postal acknowledgment of Ext.B7. In spite of
production of all those documents the Tribunal took a view that if the appellant
was not the owner the policy would not have been issued in his name. That
reasoning is illegal. Even if the name of the appellant was shown as the owner
in the RC book that was not sufficient. It is trite law that the sale of a vehicle
which is movable, is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and not
by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Certificate of registration is not a
document evidencing the title. So the view taken by the Tribunal is illegal and the
award passed is liable to be set aside. Since the transferee is impleaded in this
appeal I am of the view that it is only just and proper that the matter is remanded
MACA No.303/2003 -: 3 :-
to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving a reasonable
opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside.
Tribunal is directed to take O.P.(MV) No.2406/1995 back to file; hear and dispose
of the same afresh after impleading additional fourth respondent in the
proceedings and after giving a reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence, in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
25.9.2007. If the appellant had deposited any portion of the amount awarded in
pursuance of the award impugned in this appeal that amount is to be refunded to
the appellant.
I.A.No.1075/2003 will stand dismissed.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR
JUDGE
cks
MACA No.303/2003 -: 4 :-
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
M.A.C.A.No.303 of 2003
JUDGMENT
9th August, 2007.