IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1357 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1871/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- P.G.THOMAS, S/O.P.M.GEORGE, PUTHETHU PULARI, NEAR KARUNAGAPPALLY JUNCTION, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O.DIVAKARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR MOSQUE, MAHTHAYIL PONGANADU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE. 2. ACHAN KUNJU, PLATHARAYIL VEEDU, VATTAKARIKAKAM, KULATHUPUZHA. 3. SUNILDETH, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, KALIYALIL VEEDU, NEAR MAHADEVAR TEMPLE, KODUMAN, ATTINGAL. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== M.A.C.A. No. 1357 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 26 th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was shown as the owner of the motor cycle in question bearing Registration No.KLY- 7696 driven by the 2nd respondent, challenges the award dated 26.12.2008 passed by the MACT, Attingal awarding a sum of Rs.66,750/- to the claimant who was a pedestrian walking along the western footpath of the Attingal-Kollam National High Way. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that he had sold the vehicle to the 2nd respondent Achan Kunju much before the accident and therefore if at all the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle in question, it was the 2nd respondent who was liable for the accident and no award could have been passed against the petitioner. Except pleading that the petitioner had transfered the vehicle to the 2nd respondent and that he was not the owner of the vehicle on 3.12.2000 when the road traffic accident took place, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his plea. Apart M.A.C.A.No.1357/2009 2 from not producing and getting marked the document of transfer, he did not also mount the witness box. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in passing an award against him who was admittedly the owner. In the absence of any evidence to prove the alleged transfer, the petitioner continues to be the owner who was vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the claimant. I, therefore, do not find any good ground for interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 26th of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj M.A.C.A.No.1357/2009 3