IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 234 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.128/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/ ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4: --------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN RAWTHAR, CHENATTUPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAMEER A.U., AGED 25 YEARS, KAINICKAL (THENICKAL HOUSE), PUTHUPERIYARAM KARA, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, MANAKKADU. 2. SOY VARGHESE, S/O. P.V.VARGHESE, PARAMBILPADICKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O. THODUPUZHA. 3. AJAY @ UNNI, S/O. VIJAYAN, VATTATHATTEL HOUSE, NEAR MUNDIYADI BRIDGE, MANAKKADU KARA, MANAKKADU KARA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH KOTHAMANGALAM, 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 4617 OF 2009 WPC NO. 4643 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 234 OF 2009 and W.P.C.Nos.4617 & 4643 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appeal and the writ petitions are preferred against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)Nos.128/04, 134/04 and 127/04. The 4th respondent, against whom also an order of recovery has been granted has come up in appeal before this Court challenging the same. 2. Along with the memorandum of appeal an Annexure is produced which would indicate that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of the first respondent as early as on 1.8.2001. The accident took place in the year 2003. The policy is taken in the name of the 4th respondent and therefore the Tribunal directs a recovery from him. I feel the approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous when the registration of the vehicle is transferred in the name of the first respondent from that day onwards the previous M.A.C.A. NO. 234 OF 2009 and W.P.C.Nos.4617 & 4643 of 2009 -:2:- registered owner does not have any interest or right in the vehicle. Suppose suppressing the factum of transfer the first respondent takes the policy in the name of R4, the 4th respondent cannot be held liable for the said Act but the first respondent can be found liable for suppression of material facts and taking the policy which will make the whole policy invalid. It is in that direction the Tribunal should have considered the matter and if the policy is vitiated on that ground the liability has to go to the first respondent and the 4th respondent shall not be liable under any stretch of imagination. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal making the insurance company liable to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the 4th respondent is not valid in law. Therefore I allow the appeal as well as the writ petitions, exonerate 4th respondent from the liability and direct the insurance company to recover the amount from the first respondent who is the registered owner of the vehicle for the reason by this time the insurance company would have deposited the amount in favour of the claimants. M.A.C.A. NO. 234 OF 2009 and W.P.C.Nos.4617 & 4643 of 2009 -:3:- Therefore the appeal and the writ petitions are allowed, 4th respondent is exonerated from the liability and the insurance company is given the liberty to recover the amount from the first respondent who is the registered owner of the vehicle from 2001 onwards. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-