IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1795 of 2010() ------------------------------- OPMV.596/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THAJUDEEN T.J.,VELLOORTHARA, VELLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- * 1. MUHAMMED ISMAIL S/O.KHADERKUTTY RAWTHER,NARAKATUMKATTIL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM KARA, PERUVANTHANAM-685 532. (DELETED) * R1 DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN MACA.No.1795/2010 DATED 07/12/2010. 2. MANOJ, S/O. KURIAN, KANNOTHU HOUSE, KOTTUR BHAGOM,KANYAMKAVAYAL KARA, PERUVANTHANAM-685 532. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELEVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1795 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.596/2004. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.60,600/=. There was a direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount and get it recovered from the second respondent on the ground that the driver did not have the valid licence and as there is breach of the policy condition, the insurance company is entitled to be reimbursed. It is against that decision, the second respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the present appellant is that he had sold the vehicle to one Shaju Bhaskaran on 26.2.2004. Therefore it is contended that as the accident occurred on 11.3.2004, on the date of the accident the second respondent was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he is not liable to pay the compensation. Unfortunately this contention had not been taken up before the Tribunal and so the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1795 OF 2010 Tribunal did not have the opportunity to consider those contentions. 3. Now the question is whether the second respondent was the owner on the date of the accident or the 4th respondent or 5th respondent to be impleaded was the owner at the time of the accident. So far as the liability is concerned, it has to be stated that irrespective of the question whether the second respondent is the owner or 4th respondent is the owner of the vehicle stands registered in the name of the second respondent in the claim petition and as the policy also stands in his name, by virtue of the decision of this Court reported in Ashraf v. Fathima (2004 (2) KLT 598), the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount only from the insured and not from other person because there is no privity of contract between them. So the direction of the Tribunal to reimburse the amount by the appellant to the insurance company cannot be found fault with. But a question may arise that if really the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident, is he not entitled to get the amount which he has to pay : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1795 OF 2010 from the owner on the date of the accident. I say so because under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act i.e, Section 2(30) owner includes a person who is in possession of the vehicle as well and by virtue of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act when consideration is paid and possession is handed over, there is divestiture of title and change of registration is an act subsequent to the same and therefore it will not stand in the way of deciding the ownership. 4. Therefore if the appellant can succeed after impleading Shaju Bhasakarn and Robins Mathew that he had parted with possession of the vehicle as owner, then the person who is the owner has to make good for the loss that is sustained by the appellant. 5. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as follows: The direction of the Tribunal to reimburse the amount to the insurance company by the present appellant is confirmed, but the matter is remitted back for the purpose of impleading Shaju Bhasakaran and Robins Mathew and then decide the question whether there was transfer of vehicle by the appellant in favour of them or any of them and : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1795 OF 2010 ultimately if its is proved that the appellant has transferred the vehicle prior to the date of the accident, then right may be given to the present appellant to get the amount which he has to pay to the insurance company from the owner on the date of accident. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.01.2011. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.1795 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T