IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 507 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.738/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------------- MABLE PETER, S/O. P.T. PETER, PARAPPURAM, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.SABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJURAMAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, KUMARETHU THEKKATHIL, PADANAYAR KULANGARA NORTH MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. THOMAS PETER, PARAPPURAM, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., QUILON. 3. RAVI, S/O. RAGHAVAN, CHITTOOTHARA VEEDU, CHAVARA. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. GAGADHARAN, PUTHENPURA VEEDU, PATTATHANAM, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R1 SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.K.P.JABBAR FOR R3 SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 507 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the registered owner of the vehicle against the award authorising insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the appellant. Even though appellant took the stand that vehicle was sold to third respondent, third respondent entered appearance and contended that he was out of India during the relevant time and purchase was in fact made by his father. He further contended that vehicle in turn was sold by the purchaser to another person and at the time of the accident the third respondent was the owner and his father had nothing to do with the vehicle. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant because appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle and even though the vehicle was sold to the third respondent, no statutory declaration was filed to effect transfer in the record of the RTO's office. It is also seen that no intimation is seen 2 issued by the appellant to the RTO's office about transfer of the vehicle. In the circumstances, appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3