IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 1435 of 2001() ---------------------- OPMV.923/1990 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: 2nd RESPONDENT: ----------- DR.M.P.MATHEW, RESIDING AT MALETHIPARAMBIL, PEACE COTTAGE, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1,3 AND 4. ------------- 1. ABRAHAM, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PAYIPRA VEEDU, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PAYIPRA VEEDU, KAILASAPARA ESTATE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. CHERIAN, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PAYIPRA VEEDU, NARIYANPARA P.O. MELEKUNCHIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. ANNAMMA, W/O. JOY, RESIDING AT PODIMATTATHIL VEEDU, PAYYAPPADY P.O., PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 5. BINU ALIAS SAJI, S/O.VASU NAIR, RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL VEEDU, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 6. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM. 7. ABRAHAM, S/O.KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT THEVARMALA HOUSE, PAMPADY KARA, PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1435 of 2001 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The second respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.923/1990, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, who was the erstwhile owner of the scooter bearing Registration No.KRY 198 is the appellant. Appellant is challenging an award passed by the Tribunal by which it had directed the 6th respondent Insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the appellant. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a petition claiming compensation on account of the fact that their mother sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 29.1.1990. It was averred that while the mother of respondents 1 to 5 were walking along the road, a scooter bearing Registration No.KRY 198, ridden by the 5th respondent in a rash or negligent manner, came and hit against her and she sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries. Respondents 1 to 4 and deceased 5th respondent had filed a petition claiming compensation. Second respondent, appellant herein, MFA No.1435/2001 2 entered appearance and contested the matter. He contended that he was an unnecessary party. It was contended that he was not riding the vehicle and it was ridden by one Biju. Appellant also contended that he was not the owner of vehicle on the date of accident. He contended that he sold the vehicle to one T.K.Abraham on 14.1.1990, and from that day onwards, he had no control over the vehicle and Abraham was the owner of the vehicle. It was also contended that he had informed the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam, about the transfer and contended that first respondent was riding the vehicle without his knowledge or consent. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter. It further found that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.27,950/=, and the award was passed authorising respondents 1 to 4 to recover the amount from the appellant, 5th respondent, and the Insurer. The Insurer was directed to deposit the amount and to recover the same from the appellant. Challenging that part of the award, this appeal is filed. MFA No.1435/2001 3 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal failed to note that a scooter is a movable, and the sale of which is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. It is argued that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Original Petition. 4. Sri.P.R.Padmanabhan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has argued that there is absolutely no evidence adduced to establish that the 4th respondent was the registered owner of the scooter on the date of accident. It is argued that the appellant was the registered owner and the vehicle was covered with a policy of insurance issued in the name of the appellant. It is argued that if as a matter of fact, there was any transfer of ownership, there was no need for the appellant to renew the policy of insurance. 5. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 5th respondent, Binu, is correct and does not call for any interference. The contention that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to get Rs.27,950/= as compensation also does not call for any interference. The only question that arise for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the MFA No.1435/2001 4 appellant was the ostensible owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident is correct or not. It is true that even on the date of accident, appellant was the registered owner. But his specific case was that he sold the vehicle to 7th respondent and informed the matter to the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam. He produced Exts.B1 and B2 to show that on 14.1.1990, he wrote a letter to the 7th respondent and also intimation to the Regional Transport Officer. Ext. B2 is the memo showing the receipt of intimation. Ext.B6 produced by the appellant shows that prior to that, on 1.2.1990 itself, 7th respondent had written a letter to the Circle Inspector of Police, contending that he was the owner of the vehicle. 6. It is true that Certificate of Registration stands in the name of the appellant. Motor vehicle is a movable. Just like any other movable, the sale of scooter is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. In Aliyar Kunju v. Subair Khan (1984 KLT 268), this Court has held that it is not the registration certificate of the vehicle, which confers ownership to the purchaser. It was further held that transfer of ownership of a vehicle is a matter governed not by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, but by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. It was held that as between the transferor and the MFA No.1435/2001 5 transferee, the sale is complete before the transfer of the registration certificate. It is the duty of the purchaser to get the registration certificate transferred in his name. So, the mere fact that the 7th respondent failed to take prompt action in getting this ownership transferred in his name is not a ground to hold that the appellant was a ostensible owner. Exts.B1, B2, B5 and B6 along with the oral evidence of the appellant clearly establishes that he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. 7th respondent was the owner. It is true that there was a valid policy of insurance issued in the name of the appellant and in view of the provisions contained in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there will be an automatic transfer of that policy in favour of the 7th respondent. In this particular case, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Final report produced in this case shows that specific case put forward by the prosecution was that the rider was not having a valid driving licence. So, the direction of the Tribunal to the Insurer to deposit the amount and recover it from the appellant is correct. But, in view of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 7th respondent is the insured. So, the Insurer can recover the amount from 7th respondent. The award under challenge is to be modified to that extent. MFA No.1435/2001 6 In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is exonerated from the liability. It is found that 7th respondent is the owner and as such, he was liable for the compensation. Insurer is directed to deposit the amount and recover the same from the 7th respondent, by executing this order. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1435 of 2001 J U D G M E N T Dated:4th February, 2008. -------------------------------