IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 27 of 2007(A) --------------------------------- OPMV.1194/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PTNR.& RSPDTS.1 & 2 AND ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.ITTIATHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, THOTTATHIKUDIYIL HOUSE, MUTTUKADUKARA, RAJAKUMARI VILLAGE. 2. ANTONY JOSE, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE, POOPPARA KARA, POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 3. LIJU VARGHESE, THAMARAPILLIL HOUSE, POOPPARA P.O., POOPPARA VILLAGE. 4. T.G. ASHOK KUMAR, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW - R.4 SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 27 of 2007(A) ORDER ON I.A.NO.42/2007 IN MACA.NO. 27/2007 DISMISSED 17.07.2008 SD/-, M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 27 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 1194/02. The Tribunal awarded the petitioner a compensation of Rs.35,700/- and directed the Insurance Company to recover it from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition jointly and severally. Aggrieved by that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the policy stands in the name of the 4th respondent in the claim application and if the vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent, the question of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle may not arise. Secondly, being a passenger in a private jeep, he is having the characteristic of a gratuitous passenger and therefore the Insurance Company is to be totally exonerated from the liability. 3. There is a confusion in this case because of the conduct of the parties. A reference to para 18 of the award would reveal that the policy stands in the name of the 4th respondent Ashok kumar and there is convincing documents produced before the Tribunal that the MACA No.27/07 2 vehicle had been transferred by Ashok kumar in favour of Liju Varghese with effect from 10.12.99. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report Ext.A8 revealed that the name of the registered owner of the vehicle is the 2nd respondent. These transfers had taken effect in 1999. The policy is issued for the period from 20.4.2001 to 19.4.2002. The accident had taken place on 9.4.02. The fiction of an automatic or deemed transfer of a policy under Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be extended to a period beyond the validity period of the policy at the time of effecting transfer. Since the vehicle is already transferred in the year 1999, the currency of the then existing policy would have lapsed by 2000. Therefore it is a fresh policy that has to be taken in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Tribunal has taken a view that Ext.B1 policy also got automatically transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent. Such a contingency may not arise for the reason that it is for the subsequent period. If materials are available and further particulars are required to be produced, it requires consideration. I am also at loss to understand how Insurance Companies issue policies even without verifying the registration certificate of the vehicle. I stop there. MACA No.27/07 3 4. The next question is regarding the status of the person travelling in the jeep. If it is only an Act only policy then the status of that person will be akin to that of a gratuitous passenger. It has been held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] that a gratuitous passenger is not covered by the policy. When a person is not covered by the policy and when he is not a third party, the question of directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the claimant and to get it reimbursed from the owner will not arise. So it is also a matter that requires consideration at the hands of the court below. 5. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to the Insurance Company's liability to the parties. I am not interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the following questions: (i) What will be the impact of Ext.B1 policy when the vehicle is transferred in the year 1999 and the new policy is issued for the period 20.4.2001 to 19.4.02. (ii) Whether any transfer of the vehicle in the year 1999 will have a deemed transfer under Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act in MACA No.27/07 4 view of the above fact. (iii) If the claimant is a gratuitous passenger in a private jeep and the policy is only Act only policy, whether he is entitled to be compensated by the Insurance Company as he is only a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy and who will not be a third party to the proceeding. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.27/07 5