IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 2165 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.18/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------ UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. SANKARAN EZHUTHASSAN, THANIKKAL HOUSE, 22/195, THIRUNELLAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): [ETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. SULAIMAN, S/O. BHAVA, AGED 30 YEARS, THIRUKKODE HOUSE, NADUVATHUPARA P.O., PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. M.S.MOHANDAS, S/O. SIVARAMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, MALEPPURA HOUSE, PARUTHIPULLY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.R.MANIKANTAN. R2 BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2165OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in OP(MV)No.18/2001. The short point that arises for determination in this case is regarding the ownership of the auto rickshaw on the date of the accident. Unfortunately there is no coverage for the vehicle and therefore, things will depend upon determination of the ownership of the vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant very strongly pleads before me that his client is involved in a great handicap on account of the fight between respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, justice should be done to him. Absolutely I have no quarrel with the said argument. It has also to be stated that the respondents should have been more vigilant in the case. But a perusal of the award would reveal that the first respondent had specifically contended before the Tribunal that he is not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. He has also stated that he had sold : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2165OF 2009 the vehicle to the second respondent on 10.12.1998 for a consideration of Rs.37,500/=. The second respondent in his written statement has not disputed the statement of the first respondent regarding the same. But when the liability is to be fixed, the court is expected to arrive at a finding from the materials that who is the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly the registration stands in the name of the first respondent. It has been held by this Court that under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an owner can be a person who is in possession of the vehicle. It has also to be held that change of registration is only a subsequent act of sale and under the Sale of Goods Act transfer of possession on receipt of consideration would amount to divestiture of title and therefore just because registration certificate is not transferred, it will not be correct to hold that there was no sale of the vehicle. Unfortunately the agreement was not produced before the Tribunal and marked. Evidence was not adduced by the second respondent as well with respect to his stand. Therefore the matter requires consideration regarding the ownership of the vehicle. So far as the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2165OF 2009 quantum is concerned, I do not propose to interfere with the same and therefore the short question that has to be decided is regarding the ownership of the vehicle. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit respondents 1 and 2 to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support or their respective contentions and then decide the question of ownership of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Being a very old matter, I direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a time frame of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.8.2010. I direct respondents 1 and 2 to co-operate with the court for a speedy trial. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2165OF 2009