IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1196 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.540/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANTS/ ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJASREE, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RAJ BHAVANAM, EDAKKADU.P.O., KORANI, KIZHUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT M.D. OFFICE, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNARAJ, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RAJ BHAVANAM, EDAKKADU.P.O., KORANI, KIZHUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT ESTABLISHMENT WING, L.D. CLERK, TRAVANCORE DEVASAM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA, ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL. RESPONDENT 6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHAVANIAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, M/O. KARTHYANI, PATHALIL VEEDU, WADASSERRYKARA VILLAGE. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. PONNAPPAN PILLAI, LEKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, VALAMCHUZHI MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. M.A.C.A. NO. 1196/2008-C: 3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AYSWARYA, T.C. 19/2125, MUNDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALLUMKATHARA BUILDING, P.B. NO. 67, KOZHENCHERRY ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN M.T., MELEKONATHU @ THIRUVANTHIRA VEEDU, THAZHAMMURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE. R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1196 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV)No.540 of 1998. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,000/-. It exonerated the insurance company from the liability and directed additional respondents 4 and 5 together and the 6th respondent to deposit the amount in equal portion failing which the petitioner will be entitled to recover the same by executing the award. It is against that decision additional respondents 4 and 5 in the claim petition have come up in appeal. 2. The question for determination is regarding the inter se liability between respondents 4 and 5 on one hand and 6th respondent on the other hand. Respondents 4 and 5 are the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, who died. Admittedly the vehicle stood registered in his claim and the 2nd respondent was the registered owner. It is the contention of the legal representatives that at the time of accident the MACA1196/2008 -:2:- vehicle was owned by the 6th respondent and therefore he is liable to pay the compensation and not respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in P.P.Mohammed v. K.Rajappan and others(2003 ACJ 1595) held that the registered owner is also liable. It is against that decision the said respondents 4 and 5 have come up in appeal. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, viz., the appellants herein would contend that by reference to the definition under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act it is not only the registered owner, who will be the owner of the vehicle, a person in possession by virtue of an agreement will also be an owner for the purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Or, in other words, a transfer of the registration certificate is not necessary to confer ownership. It is true that under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, the passing of consideration coupled with handing over possession may amount to divestiture of title and therefore it is contended that the 2nd respondent or his legal representatives cannot be made liable for the compensation. Leaned counsel had relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in P.V.Said Mohammed v. Rema and others(1995(2) KLJ 259), wherein this Court took the view that in certain cases there may have to be the deviation. The Apex Court in the decision reported in 2003 ACJ 1595(supra) in paragraph 4 following the decision reported in MACA1196/2008 -:3:- Dr.T.V.Jose v. Chacko P.M.(2001 ACJ 2059(SC) held as follows: “Wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in the R.T.O. records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person”. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, the Tribunal had found that the vehicle was got released by the 6th respondent and it also found that the 6th respondent was the owner of the vehicle. It also found that it was the 6th respondent who produced the vehicular documents before the police station in the capacity as the actual owner in possession of the same. So, by virtue of this, it is clear that the 6th respondent was the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of the accident, but in the light of the decisions referred to above, as far as 3rd parties are concerned, the registered owner cannot get himself absolved from the liability. But in between the registered owner and the subsequent purchaser when there is a clear evidence to the effect that the registered owner has parted title and possession of the vehicle, the purchaser would be made liable to pay the amount which the registered owner is made liable to pay to a 3rd party. MACA1196/2008 -:4:- Therefore the appeal is disposed of as follows: The finding that respondents 4 and 5 together and the 6th respondent are liable to pay the amount equally to the 3rd party claim is confirmed. But, it is made clear that on payment of 50% of the amount so ordered, the registered owner can realise that amount from supplemental respondent No.6 in the claim petition by executing the very same award so that there is no unjust enrichment for the tortious act of the 6th respondent. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-