IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1521 of 2011() ------------------------------------- OPMV.NO.2924/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,THRISSUR ...... APPELLANT(S): IN MACA - RESPONDENT NO.1 IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.F.JOHN, S/O.FRANCIS, AKKARA HOUSE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): IN MACA - PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN OPMV: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JOHNY, KIDANGAN HOUSE, P.O. OLLUKKARA, PANDARAPARAMBU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 655. 2. SANTHAKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, CHAKKEDATHIL HOUSE PO, PUTHUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 014. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Owner of a vehicle involved in the accident is the appellant. By the impugned award, he and the driver of the vehicle were made jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,000/- as compensation along with interest and proportionate cost. The insurer of the vehicle was absolved of the liability to satisfy the award. 2. The appellant/owner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle on the relevant date. The accident took place on 09/09/2004. According to the appellant, he had purchased a new vehicle from M/s.Sitharam Auto Sales and Services. While purchasing the vehicle, he had sold back his old vehicle (the vehicle involved in the accident) to the said dealer. In short, the contention is that the appellant was not the owner on the relevant date. M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 2 3. It is not disputed that the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The accident had taken place on 09/09/2004 and the alleged exchange was done on 13/12/1999. It is admitted that the appellant continued to be the insured in respect of the vehicle even on the date of the accident. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will get mulcted with liability only if he were the owner of the vehicle on the relevant date. According to the appellant, he was not the owner of the vehicle and the only document produced by him in support of this theory is Ext.B1 invoice issued by M/s.Sitharam Auto Sales and Services when he purchased a new vehicle from the said dealer on 13/12/1999. That invoice shows that towards a total amount of Rs.26,092/- due as price of the vehicle, an amount of Rs.6,003/- was paid and only a balance amount of Rs.20,089/- remained to be paid. It is the contention of the appellant that the said “paid amount of Rs.6,003/-” represents the value of the vehicle involved in the accident which was exchanged with the dealer on 13/12/1999 while purchasing a new vehicle. M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 3 4. Except the production of Ext.B1 and the oral evidence of the appellant as RW1, no other evidence whatsoever was adduced before the tribunal. The tribunal did not accept the said theory advanced by the appellant. 5. In appeal, we find no reason to accept that the appellant had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The mere fact that an amount of Rs.6,003/- is shown to be deducted as “paid amount” from the price of the vehicle purchased under Ext.B1 is insufficient to persuade the Court to accept that theory advanced by the appellant. In short, in the light of the undisputed fact that the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle as also the insured in respect of the vehicle, the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 cannot be held to be sufficient to conclude that he was not the owner of the vehicle. We are of the opinion that the tribunal committed no error in not accepting the theory advanced by the appellant. The challenge raised on this ground must hence necessarily fail. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the total amount of Rs.3,94,000/- awarded as per M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 4 the details given in paragraph 12 is excessive. 7. Called upon to explain, the counsel contends that under the heads 3, 5, 6 and 7 - medical and miscellaneous expenses, bystander's expenses, transportation expenses and extra nourishment, amounts in excess of the amounts claimed have been awarded by the Tribunal. We find no merit in this contention at all. It is well settled that the mere fact that the Tribunal has awarded amounts in excess of the amounts claimed under some heads cannot justify appellate interference when the amounts awarded are found to be justified going by the loss suffered by the claimant. A total amount of Rs.5,56,000/- was claimed and towards that, only an amount of Rs.3,94,000/- has been awarded also. In these circumstances, the mere fact that under heads 3, 5, 6 and 7, amounts in excess of amounts claimed have been awarded by the Tribunal is according to us no reason to interfere with the impugned award. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under the said heads are perfectly justified by the nature of the loss suffered by the claimant. The challenge on this ground must also hence necessarily fail. M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 5 8. No other contentions are raised. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this appeal does not merit admission. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it may be made clear that the options available in law for the appellant against M/s.Sitaram Auto Sales & Services would remain unaffected by the impugned award or this appellate judgment. Needless to say, rights if any of the appellant to claim amounts against the said M/s.Sitaram Auto Sales & Services shall remain unaffected by the impugned award and this judgment. 10. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1521 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010