IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1658 of 2005(C) --------------------------------- OPMV.1457/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT I ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSEELA, W/O.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, CHARUVIL VADAKKETHIL, MATTAPPALLY, NOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAMMA, PATTADAPARAMBIL VEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 2. OMANAKUTTAN, KOCHUTHADATHIL HOUSE, KULABHAGAOM, THADIYOOR, THIRUVALLA. 3. ROY, S/O.CHACKO, AMBALATHINTE KIZHAKETHIL VEEDU, PONNARAMTHOTTAM, MAVELIKKARA, NOW RESIDING AT MARUTHANAKUNNEL VEEDU, ELAMKULAM, EDIKKULAM VILLAGE. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1658 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV)1457/94. The registered owner of the vehicle involved is the appellant before this Court. She had raised the contention that though she is the registered owner of the vehicle she had sold the vehicle as early as in the year 1992 to one Sasi, Palakkal Veedu, Avalukunnu, Thekkan Arriyadu and therefore she was not the owner of the vehicle and the driver was not engaged by her and therefore there is no vicarious liability on her. Unfortunately this owner has not chosen to file any statement before the Tribunal and contested the case. So the Tribunal cannot be blamed for the award which it has passed. Now, the learned counsel would contend that if an opportunity is given she will be able to establish the same. But one or two points have to be made clear even if a remand is to be given. M.A.C.A. 1658 OF 2005 -:2:- 2. Firstly regarding the quantum of compensation. It cannot be challenged at this stage and therefore there may not be a remand for that purpose. Secondly, the right to get reimbursement by the insurance company from the registered owner. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Ashraf v. Fathima 2004 (2) KLT 598 had held that “The insurance company cannot recover it from the defacto owner because there is no contractual agreement between the defacto owner and the insurance company. The insurance company can recover it only from the insured.” Admittedly, the appellant continues to be the registered owner at the time of the accident and the policy also stand in her name. Therefore the insurance company can only get reimbursement from her. Therefore this will not absolve the registered owner from getting out of the liability. 3. Lastly the question to be considered is who is the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of accident, if the proposed party is proved to be the owner in possession he or she may be liable to pay the amount to the registered M.A.C.A. 1658 OF 2005 -:3:- owner. Under Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act an owner is defined as a person who is in possession of the vehicle by virtue of an agreement and therefore if the transfer is proved he can be held to be a owner. It is also to be held that under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act divestiture of title coupled with the payment of consideration and handing over of vehicle will complete a transfer of movable. Section 31 of the old Registration Act is only a procedural formality for the change of registration that has to be complied with after effecting sale. Therefore in order to determine the question who was the owner on the date of the accident an opportunity can be given to the present appellant. I make it clear that first, liability to reimburse to the insurance company will remain in tact but the question is whether in case of success he can get the amount reimbursed from the person who is alleged to be the owner on the date of sale. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside to the limited extend to find out who was the owner in possession on the date of the accident and if so whether the present M.A.C.A. 1658 OF 2005 -:4:- appellant is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount which she is legally bound to pay to the insurance company. For that purpose the appellant is permitted to implead the alleged owner and after hearing all concerned the matter can be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.9.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-