IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 2006 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.891/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------- JOSHY, S/O.JOSEPH, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, IROOR P.O., ATTUPURAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENT 2 & ADDL. RESPONDENT 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIJO, S/O.JOSEPH, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, AREECKALTHANDU BHAGAM, PERUMPILLICHIRA, KUMARAMANGALAM, PIN-685 597. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA BRANCH, PIN-685 584. 3. HYDROSE, S/O.ALIYAR, PULLIKKUDIL HOUSE, KALLOLI BHAGAM, EZHALLOOR KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-685 597. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K), SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2006 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal,Thodupuzha in OP(MV)No.891/2006, whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.25,500/= and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount and recover it from the first respondent as the third respondent driver did not have the valid driving licence. It is against that decision, the first respondent in the claim petition has come up in appeal. 2. It is the case of the first respondent before the Tribunal that he had sold the vehicle in favour of one Khader on 1.8.2000 and thereafter had never been in possession of the vehicle involved in the accident. The accident had taken place on 20.9.2006. The Tribunal found that R3 was the rider, who did not have the valid driving licence and therefore there was breach of the policy condition and so directed the insurance company to get reimbursement from the owner namely the registered owner, the appellant. Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant had produced : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2006 OF 2010 Annexures A1 and A2. Annexure A1 represents transfer in favour of Khader and Annexure A2 is said to be a document created by Khader forging the signature of the appellant as a sale towards the third respondent in the claim petition or in other words, the consistent case of the first respondent namely the appellant is that after the transfer of the vehicle in 2000, he had not been in possession or in ownership of the said vehicle. The Tribunal found that being a registered owner, he is liable to pay the amount. 3. It is true that the registered owner in whose name the policy stands is bound to reimburse in the light of the decision reported in Ashraf v. Fathima ( 2004 (2) KLT 598). But in order to have transfer of a vehicle, it is not imperative to have transfer of the registration certificate instantaneously. Under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, receipt of consideration and handing over of possession would amount to divestiture of title so far as it relates to a movable property. Therefore if the appellant is able to establish that factor, even if he is found ultimately liable to reimburse the amount to the insurer, there can be a : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2006 OF 2010 provision in the award entitling him to realise that amount from the owner of the vehicle. As per the definition of the owner under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person in possession also can be an owner. So these are all matters which requires consideration at the hands of the court. 4. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the inter se liability is concerned and the appellant is permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions on sale. The other parties are also permitted to do the same and the Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh on this point and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.1.2011. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.2006 OF 2010 : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.2006 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T