IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 2149 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.654/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/ IST RESPONDENT ----------------------- ABDUL SALAM, KARIYATTU KUNIYIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ----------------------- 1. SUHAIB (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN FATHIMA, THAZHE PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KUTTIADI AMSOM DESOM, KUTTIADI P.O. 673575 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O.KANNAN CHETTIAR, KUZHICHALIL HOUSE, VATAYAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAYAM P.O., KAKKATTIL, VADAKARA TALUK. 673 501 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PB NO.27, SREENIDHI BUILDING, NARAYANGARAM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.DT. 673 511 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER - R2 SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL - R2 SMT.M.V.SAVEENA - R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) - R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2149 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent in O.P. (MV)654/98. A child, namely Suhaib, sustained injuries in a road accident and filed a claim petition. The Tribunal found him entitled for a compensation of Rs.28,000/-. The Tribunal also found that the 2nd respondent in the claim petition was not having a valid driving licence and therefore directed the insurance company to pay the amount and recover it from respondents 1 and 2. It is at this stage the appeal has been preferred. The main contention raised by the appellant is that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and he had transferred the vehicle in favour of one Satheesh Kumar for consideration. It is recited in the document, a photo copy which is produced that the sale had taken effect on 16.2.96. So it is contended that on the date of accident, namely 23.5.96, the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he has to be exonerated. The M.A.C.A. 2149 OF 2007 -:2:- appellant has been negligent for the reason he remained exparte and did not contest the case at all. 2. So far as the claimant is concerned the amount is recovered from the insurance company and now what remains is the reimbursement of the amount by the persons who are liable to do it. Since there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle on the date of accident it is desirable the said matter is also decided by the Tribunal so that the insurance company will be able to proceed with the matter. Therefore I set aside the award to the limited extend of resolving the question of ownership of the vehicle. The appellant herein is permitted to file a written statement and also is permitted to file an application for impleadment of the said Satheesh Kumar, at the appellant's expense and after hearing all concerned including the claimant and the insurance company the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.7.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-