IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2553 of 2008() --------------------------------- OPMV.1192/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM ........................................ APPELLANT(S): ------------------- ARUN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN PALAKUZHY HOUSE, KULATHADAM, PARLIKKADU PO. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. K.S.CHANDRAN, KOLANGARAVALAPPIL HOUSE P.O.THEKKUMKARA, VADAKKANCHERY ,THRISSUR. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BO2 K.P.N.,SHOPPING COMPLEX, OPP, THIRUVAMBADY TEMPLE, SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR, POLICY NO.8888/05 VALID FROM 12.3.2005 TO 11.3.2006) ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.2553 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the claimant in OP(MV) 11992/05 against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.19,318 and directed R1 in the claim petition to pay the amount. It exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. It is against that decision the claimant has come up n appeal. 2. Though the matter at the outset looks to be a simple one, I find that so many points requires consideration which had not been adverted to. At the outset, first point to be considered is whether the claimant himself was the owner of the vehicle? Just because the name is not changed in the RC book, it does not ipso facto prove that he is not the owner of the vehicle. Under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle Act, a person in possession can also be an owner and further under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, for transfer of an immovable property payment of M.A.C.A No.2553/2008 2 consideration coupled with transfer of possession proves divestiture of title. So in such case he become the owner of the property. So it is a matter that requires consideration and which had not been considered. Next question is, suppose a person himself is responsible for the accident, whether he is entitled to claim compensation ? A Full Bench of this court held in favour of the claimant and a Division Bench has doubted the decision and matter is pending consideration of a larger bench of this court. That also a matter which has to be considered at the time of disposal of the case. 3. The third question is regarding the liability of the insurance Company. The grievance of the Insurance Company is that it had only issued an Act only Policy. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me additional premium of personal accident coverage is received and therefore it takes on the rider as well. We have come across many many policies with a clause of PA wherein death or permanent disability of such a nature is contemplated under the conditions as the prerequisite to cover the person involved in the accident. So Insurance Company may have to produce conditions. While so, it is also a point to be M.A.C.A No.2553/2008 3 considered. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Tribunal to consider these points. The parties are directed to adduce all documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.3.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sou.