IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1590 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.3634/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1&2: ---------------------------------- 1. K. RAVENDRAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, MADHAVAN NAIR, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHINMAYA ROAD VADUTHALA POST, COCHIN-23. 2. P.E. THOMAS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, 7/162, COCHIN-7. 3. E.F. SEBASTIAN, ECHIRANGATTU HOUSE, ETTUKATTU PARAMBIL, THANIKKAL, ELAMAKKARA POST, COCHIN-26. ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH FOR R2 SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R3 SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R3 SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.SOORAJ ELANJICKAL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1590 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the MACT directing them to pay compensation to the claimant and then to recover it from the registered owner/insured. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Since the registered owner/insured was found liable to pay compensation, there was no justification for the MACT to direct the Insurance Company to first deposit the amount because the finding is that liability is not covered by the policy. In any case if the amount is deposited by the appellant, the appeal itself has become infructuous and it is for them to proceed for recovery against the registered owner. Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that he has sold the vehicle on 10.8.1999 whereas the accident was on 14.8.1999. If that be the position, then the person liable is not second respondent, but 2 the purchaser from him. However, the MACT did not consider this claim of the second respondent because he and the driver remained exparte. In the circumstances, the MACT is directed to authorise recovery from the insured and not from the Insurance Company. However, if the amount is already paid by the Insurance Company, they can proceed for recovery against the insured in terms of the award. If second respondent makes an application before the MACT within one month from date of receipt of copy of this judgment for impleading the person to whom he sold the vehicle with proof of sale of vehicle, there will be direction to the MACT to consider such an application, issue notice to the purchaser from him, hear the parties and decide the matter afresh within three months thereafter. If second respondent is not found liable, recovery should be authorised from the person who was the registered owner at the time of the accident. Whatever amount is still due, the claimant can claim it against the registered owner, whether it be second respondent or the transferee he proves, based on the 3 revised order to be passed by the MACT as directed above. If second respondent does not get the award modified within the time stipulated above, claimants can proceed against the second respondent. The appeal is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms