IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 143 of 2008() --------------------------------- OP(MV).390/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA ........................... APPELLANT/SUPPL. 4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- HASSAN, S/O.ABDU, AYANGATTU HOUSE, POST KEEZHARIYOOR, MEPPAYOOR VIA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. IJAS, S/O.HAMEED, KIZHAKE VALAPPIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM AND DESOM, POST KEEZHOOR, PIN 673 522, KOYILANDI TALUK. 2. PRAKASAN, S/O.GOPALAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, POST KAYANNA, VIA PERAMBRA. 3. BASHEER, S/O.PAKRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, IRINGATH KULANGARA HOUSE, IRINGATH AMSOM AND DESOM, POST IRINGATH, KOYILANDY TALUK, PIN 673 523. 4. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, VATAKARA, KALLINGAL BUILDING, POST VATAKARA 673 101. 5. RAMESAN, S/O.SIVANANDAN, PUDUKKUDI HOUSE, KALAPATHOOR, AMSOM DESOM. ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SRI.SANTHARAM P. FOR R3 SMT.P.A.RAZIYA FOR R4 SRI. B.V.JOY SANKER FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 143 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.187/2008 IN MACA NO.143/2008 DISMISSED 09/12/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.143 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)No.390 of 1999. The claimant, a pedestrian sustained injuries in a road accident when he was hit by a jeep driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of his negligence and fixed a compensation of Rs.36,706/- with 6% interest and directed the 4th respondent to produce the cheque. It is against that decision, the 4th respondent has come up in appeal. 2. Admittedly there is no insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date of accident, i.e. 21.12.1998. The specific contention of the 4th respondent in the claim petition is that though the registration stands in his name he had transferred the vehicle to the 5th respondent Ramesan and therefore he cannot be made liable to pay compensation and a further discussion in paragraph 12 of the award would indicate that Ramesan claims to be in possession of the vehicle till 30.6.1997 and he has transferred the vehicle to one Musthafa on the said date. The appellant's MACA 143/2008 -:2:- specific contention is that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of Ramesan, viz., 5th respondent on 2.1.1996. The accident had taken place on 21.12.1998. So, from the contention raised by the 5th respondent, it is admitted that at least till 30.6.1997 he was in possession of the vehicle and therefore the contention of the appellant that he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident appears to be correct from the specific pleading of the 5th respondent. But the 5th respondent would contend that he had transferred the vehicle to one Musthafa and along with the memorandum of appeal an annexure is produced, wherein the vehicle is taken possession by one Kunjammed, s/o Moosa, who claims to be the owner by agreement. It has to be remembered that so far as the transfer of a motor vehicle is concerned, it is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. When there is receipt of consideration and passing of possession and divestiture of title, the sale is complete and the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act regarding transfer of ownership is only a subsequent necessity under the Motor Vehicles Act and it is not the transfer of registration that confers title but it is the sale that confers title. I do not know why the Tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant, who even according to the 5th respondent in the claim petition was not the owner of the vehicle on 21.12.1998. The 5th respondent would contend that MACA 143/2008 -:3:- Musthafa is the owner and Annexure A1 produced along with the appeal would show that one Kunjammed, S/o.Moosa is the owner of the vehicle as per the agreement. So, the matter requires impleadment of additional parties and further reconsideration. So necessarily, in order to fix the liability on the person on the ground that who is the owner of the vehicle the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the question, who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and after recording the finding on that question, the Tribunal is directed to order payment of compensation by him to the claimant. Till that time, whatever amount is in court deposit it shall lie in court deposit and as it is seen that the insurance company is not liable for want of policy the question of fixing the liability on the insurance company may not arise at all. For this limited purpose, the matter is remitted back and the claimant is directed to implead this Musthafa and Kunjammed and the Tribunal has to permit the parties to file pleadings and additional pleadings and produce documents and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. MACA 143/2008 -:4:- Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.1.2009. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-