IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1902 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.763/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/ 1ST RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------- BHARGAVI, D/O.KURUMBA, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KUTTIMANNIL, KALANJOOR-PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SMT.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) MR.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT :- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJITH SAIN, HASEENA MANZIL, CHELAKODU TOWN WARD, MANCHALLOOR-PATHANAPURAM. 2. SAJIKUMAR, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KUTTIMANNIL, KALANJOOR- PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY ADV. MR.SYAM J. SAM THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1902 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur in O.P.(MV) No.763/2003. The claimant while riding on a scooter was knocked down by a car which resulted in injuries to him. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.43,889/- and made the 1st respondent in the Claims Petition liable for the amount. It is against that decision R1 has come up an appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The short point that arises for determination is with respect to the ownership of the vehicle. Admittedly, R1 is the registered owner of the vehicle. But it is the contention of the 1st respondent that he has transferred the vehicle and on the date of the accident he is not the owner in possession of the vehicle and therefore he cannot M.A.C.A.No.1902 of 2008 -2- be saddled with any liability. It appears from the case that even the claimant was under the impression that PW2 is the owner of the vehicle. Since there is no insurance policy, the Court has to decide the issue regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Under Sec.2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an owner of a vehicle can be the registered owner or a person in possession of the vehicle under an agreement. This Court has held that when the vehicle is handed over possession, coupled with receipt of consideration it amounts to divestiture of title and the person in possession becomes the owner of the vehicle. It has also been held that the change of registration is a condition subsequent to the transfer and therefore the ownership cannot be decided on the sole basics of the Registration Certificate. But here the difficulty is the proposed owner is not on the party array. It may not be right on the part of the Court to confer ownership on a person without hearing him. Therefore, the whole matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the mater is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the claimant to implead necessary parties for the purpose of deciding the question of ownership on the date of the M.A.C.A.No.1902 of 2008 -3- accident. For the said purpose let the parties be permitted to produce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Jvt