IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 951 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.540/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELANT/6TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- M.T.RADHAKRISHNAN, MELEKONATHU ALIAS THIRUVATHIRA VEEDU, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM, MALAYALAMPUZHA PO. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ----------------------------------------------- 1. BHAVANI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIYAYANI. PATHALIL VEEDU, VADASERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA,689662 2. RAMACHANDRAN, LEKSHAM VEEDU, COLONY, VALAMCHUZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA 3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AISWARYA, TC.19/2125 MUDAVANMUGAL POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM(DIED) 4. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KALUMKATHARA BUILDING, PB.67, KOZHENCHERRY ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. RAJSREE, NOW RESIDING AT M.D.OFFICE HEAD OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM TRIVAANDRUM 6. KRISHNA RAJ, NOW RESIDING AT ESTABLISHMENT WING, L.D.CLERK, TDB, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.951 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 11th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.540/1998. The appeal is preferred by the 6th respondent against whom also, the Tribunal has cast the liability along with the registered owner, viz., the second respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that he has nothing to do with the vehicle and that he had never purchased the vehicle and further that he did not know anything about the accident even. On the other hand, the second respondent had raised a contention that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 6th respondent on 11.1.1998. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of the second respondent and the 6th respondent are liable. Definition of the word 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act would indicate that the owner of a vehicle is the registered owner and also takes in a person who is in possession of the vehicle. When there is a total denial of the purchase and also of the ignorance about the accident, the materials available before the Tribunal has to be MACA NO.951/08 2 looked into. A scene mahazar had been prepared by the investigating officer. At the time of the said preparation, it was the 6th respondent who produced the vehicular documents before the said officer. Ext.A5 is also a document which would establish that the vehicle was released in favour of the 6th respondent, as the owner of the vehicle. Suppose if a person is totally unaware of an accident and that he has nothing to do with the vehicle involved in the accident, one cannot expect him to go to the police station to produce the relevant documents and take possession of the vehicle from the police station. Men may lie, but circumstances will never lie and this is a classic example in this matter also. The Tribunal had properly evaluated and appreciated the materials available before it and taking into consideration the definition of the 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the fact that there has been a transfer, and the 6th respondent was in possession of the vehicle as the owner, had fixed the liability on both of them. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said decision and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. tgs M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.951 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 11th June, 2008.