IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 1550 of 2010(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1125/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): SUPPL.4TH RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- K.ABDUSAMAD, S/O. MUHAMMED,KARAKULAVAN HOUSE, KOTTOPADAM, KANDAMANGALAM POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDU, AGED 33 YERAS, S/O. MOHAMMED, VALAPPIL HOUSE, POST THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU, MANNARKKAD TALUK 2. BALAKRISHNAN, ALIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST ALANALLUR, MANNARKKAD 3. FIROZKHAN S/O. MOIDUPPA, NALAKATH HOUSE, KADAMANGALAM, MANNARKKAD 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. HOSPITAL JUNCTION, MANNARKKAD ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1550 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P. (MV)1125/06. The claimant, a passenger in an auto rickshaw, sustained injuries in a road accident on 1-6-01. The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not having a valid permit. The Tribunal also held that the claimant can be compensated by the insurance company and recovery can be had from R1, R2 and R4 by R3 in the absence of a valid permit. Now it is challenging that decision the 4th respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me the vehicle had been sold by the appellant long prior to the accident and therefore he cannot be saddled with the liability. The Tribunal also M.A.C.A. NO. 1550 OF 2010 -:2:- found that R1 was the owner of the vehicle. But nevertheless the Tribunal felt that being a registered owner R4 can be made liable, most probably it is in the light of the decision of this Court reported in Ashraf v. Fathima 2004 (2) KLT 598. In that decision this Court held that the privity of contract is between the registered owner and the insurer and therefore insurer can realise the amount only from him. Now the learned young counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice a copy of the registration particulars. Copy of the registration particulars indicates that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of one Balakrishnan son of Kathan i.e. the first respondent with effect from 2.5.01. The accident had taken place only on 6.6.01. Therefore if the transfer is effected with effect from 2.5.01 R4 cannot be made liable. But unfortunately this document was not produced before the Tribunal M.A.C.A. NO. 1550 OF 2010 -:3:- and therefore the Tribunal held it otherwise. I feel an opportunity can be given so that the authenticated copy can be produced and the matter be dealt with by the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the interse liability between R1 and R4 are concerned. The parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appellant shall take out notice to the first respondent in the claim petition besides the insurance company for the reason they are necessary for a proper disposal of the case. The original of the document produced be returned to the appellants for production before the trial court. The amount in deposit also shall not be disbursed till a final decision is taken in the matter. Till a final decision is taken in M.A.C.A. NO. 1550 OF 2010 -:4:- the matter if any recovery proceedings are initiated that shall be kept in abeyance. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-