IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 719 of 2005(D) ------------------------------ OPMV.197/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ ANTONY JOSEPH, THATTARAPPALLI, CHEERAMCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SOSAMMA THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, EDARATHARAPEEDIKAYIL, PUTHENKAVU P.O., CHENGANNUR. 2. JOSHY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MAZHUVANCHERIL HOUSE, ELIPULIKKATTU KADAVU (B), NATTASSERRY KARA, S.H.MOUNT P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 719 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)197/96. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.24,000/- and directed the said amount to be realised on satisfaction of the award from the appellant who is the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. 2. The crux of the matter depends upon the validity of the policy which was issued for a period from 8.10.94 to 7.10.95. It is contended before the Tribunal that R2 in the claim petition has transferred the vehicle in favour of R1 thereunder on 7.9.94 and thereafter a policy taken in the name of the 2nd respondent namely the appellant. Therefore it is one which is obtained by suppressing the facts and playing fraud on the insurance company which will exonerate the insurance company from the liability. M.A.C.A. 719 OF 2005 -:2:- 3. Learned counsel would contend that S.157 of the Act will come into his rescue. S.157 of the M.V.Act envisages a situation where during the currency of the policy a vehicle is transferred then the policy will get transferred with the vehicle and the insurance company need not have to give their express consent for a change of policy which was now permissible under law under M.V.Act 1939(u/s 103-A. But here is a case where the alleged transfer is on 7.9.94 and the policy is taken on 8.10.94. So if the sale is proved admittedly the appellant will not be the owner of the vehicle on the date of issuance of the policy which means that he has no locus standi at all to apply for a policy. So everything revolves upon the sale. The Tribunal without examining anybody, on a mere perusal of a document confirms sale and holds so. It is not proper. It is a matter which requires consideration and it has to be found that on the date of the accident who was the owner and also whether there was a sale as contended on 7.9.94. So the matter requires reconsideration on the point. Therefore the award under M.A.C.A. 719 OF 2005 -:3:- challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the interse liability among R1, R2 and the insurance company. The Tribunal is directed to permit all concerned 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. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.1.2010 and the present appellant namely the 2nd respondent is directed to take out fresh summons to the first respondent in the claim petition for the reason that his junction is necessary for a proper disposal of the case. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-