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. 142 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.28/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ M.E.NIZAMUDDIN, MANIYELIL, BINANIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: ORIGINAL PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O. FRANCIS VITHYATHIL, VITHYATHIL, NORTH PARUR. 2. SURYAKUMAR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AZHAKATHARA HOUSE, PONNOTH ROAD, KALOOR DESOM, ERNAKULAM. 3. SHELTAN, S/O. JOSEPH, KACHERIPADI, NORTH PARUR. 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE, SREE NARAYANA TOURIST BUILDING, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR. 5. JOHNSON, S/O. BENJAMIN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMKARAYIL, ANDAKARANAZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 6. BABU, S/O. KUMARAN, PARAMGANATT HOUSE, ALAVALLY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R6 SRI.TONY MATHEW FOR R6 SRI.M.B.NANUTHAMBI SRI.M.V.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.B.JAYAPARAKASH FOR R1 SRI.RENJU JOHN FOR R1 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 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.142 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------- 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, North Paravur, in O.P.(MV) 28/94. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,860/-. Now, the 4th respondent in the claim petition has preferred this appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal that he is bound to pay the amount. The only question that arises for determination is whether the 4th respondent, who is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle, by entering into an agreement for sale with the 6th respondent, has ceased to be the owner of the vehicle and liable to be exonerated from the liability. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, there need not be transfer of registration for a complete transfer of the vehicle. A movable property can be sold when consideration is received for the same and possession is handed over, thereby completing the sale. If such is the situation, one can understand the argument of the learned counsel for the MACA NO.142/2003 2 appellant. Here is an agreement wherein it is stated that the 4th and 6th respondents have entered into an agreement to sell the bus, and as part of the transaction and as advance of earnest money, an amount of Rs.75,000/- is paid to the 4th respondent by the 6th respondent and the total consideration is Rs.1,10,000/-, and as part of the agreement, the possession is handed over to the 6th respondent. The recitals in the document itself would convincingly establish that it is not a transaction which has become complete, but which is capable of being completed on satisfaction of the conditions in the agreement. When a movable property is to be transferred, it is sufficient if the entire consideration is paid and the possession is handed over and there remains nothing else to perform on the part of both parties. As far this case is concerned, only an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- is paid and the balance amount is yet to be paid, but the possession is handed over. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that there is a complete sale by virtue of Ext.B1, so as to attract a sale as contemplated under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act. It is also pertinent to note that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner is specifically defined. “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and MACA NO.142/2003 3 where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. Here, the specific contention is that since the agreement has not attained finality, it is a unfulfilled agreement and hence it may not be possible for this court to hold that there was a complete transfer of the vehicle as contemplated under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, so as to cast liability on the 6th respondent. I am conscious of the fact that the transfer of registration certificate is not mandate for a sale under the Sale of Goods Act. But this court need not deal with it in detail for the reason that the sale is incomplete and therefore, it will not vest any title on the 6th respondent. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the court below in arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed under the circumstances without costs. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. tgs M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.142 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 11th June, 2008.