IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1595 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1632/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT; --------------------------------------- M.BALAN, S/O. CHANDU, MOORKOTH HOUSE, ERANHOLI, PONNYAM WEST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. SEBASTIAN P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHOOR HOUSE, P.O. KOLAYAD, KANNUR DIST. 2. K.M. JITHESHKUMAR, SON OF KUNHIRAMAKURUP, KIZHAKKEKARAMMAL HOUSE, P.V. VAYANNUR, KANNUR DIST. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR 4. C.K.SURENDRAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, C.K. HOUSE, AZHIKOD P.O., KANNUR DIST. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 SRI.RAJIT FOR R3 SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R4 SRI.M.K.SUMOD FOR R4 R1I.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1595 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed challenging that part of the award authorising recovery of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant from the appellant who was registered owner of the autorickshaw involved in the accident at the time of the accident. The case of the appellant is that vehicle was sold to fourth respondent on 10.8.1993 and the accident was only on 25.2.1996. Even though sale under agreement, taking over possession of the vehicle and operation of the autorickshaw by the fourth respondent at the time of the accident are accepted, counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that at the time of the accident vehicle sold remained registered in the name of the appellant, who was the previous owner. It is a settled position that sale of vehicle takes place on delivery of possession against payment, irrespective of whether registration is transferred to buyer or not. There is a deemed 2 transfer of insurance policy on sale of vehicle as above by virtue of operation of Section 157 of the M.V. Act. In fact the insurance company also does not dispute the liability on any ground other than violation of conditions of policy which requires that vehicle should be driven at the time of the accident by a duly licensed driver. It was found by MACT that driver who caused the accident did not have valid driving licence and consequently insurance company is liable to disown the liability. Fourth respondent has no case that driver had a valid licence. We have to necessarily hold that fourth respondent by allowing a person without a driving licence to drive the autorickshaw ran the risk of paying compensation for the accident caused by such driver. Necessarily recovery has to be made from the owner of the vehicle who is the fourth respondent. It is immaterial whether registration of the vehicle continued to remain in the name of the appellant. Further it is pertinent to note that accident occurred after three years of sale and in between fourth respondent would have renewed the insurance policy in the name of the registered owner, the fourth respondent, because vehicle had a valid policy as on the date of 3 accident. We therefore allow the appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal authorising recovery from the appellant and by directing the third respondent to proceed for recovery against the fourth respondent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 4