IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1498 of 2008(B) ------------------------------- OPMV.1291/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA. APPELLANT(S): /4TH RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATE LEGAL COORDINATOR, 1ST FLOOR, BETHESDA TOWER, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIBY GEORGE, S/O GEORGE, KACHAPPALLY HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE AND KARA, VALIYAPARA BHAGOM, MANACKANADU P.O. 2. JAIMON JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, KURICHIYANIYIL HOUSE, KALIKAVU KARA, KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE. 3. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O MOHAMMED KARIMPILLA, MUKAMTHALAVILA, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, REPRESENTED BY ITS KOCHI BRANCH MANAGER, KOCHI. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1498 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)1291/04. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,250/- and respondents 1, 2 and 4 were made liable to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the 4th respondent has come up in appeal. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is a financier. The original owner of the vehicle is the 2nd respondent in the claim application. He did not pay the amount in time and therefore the financier repossessed the vehicle under the terms of the contract. 2. It is the contention of the 4th respondent namely the appellant herein that he had sold the vehicle to the first respondent in the claim petition and on the date of accident the first respondent was the owner in possession of the vehicle. But it is submitted that unfortunately the documents M.A.C.A. 1498 OF 2008 -:2:- relating to the sale of the vehicle in favour of the first respondent in the claim petition was not produced before the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal cast the liability on the financier also. 3. It is a well settled proposition that in case of a motor vehicle the financier cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person in possession of the vehicle, and not the financier, being the owner would be liable to pay damages for motor accident[(Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma (2008 (2) KLT 429)]. 4. But there is some slight difference in this case for the reason that the person to whom the money was advanced did not pay the amount and therefore the vehicle was repossessed by the financier and in turn had transferred the vehicle to the first respondent in the claim petition. So unless and until the 4th respondent is able to establish a valid transfer in favour of the first respondent by the financier the liability of the financier will remain for the reason that the vehicle had been repossessed from the person to whom M.A.C.A. 1498 OF 2008 -:3:- money has been advanced by the financier. So it is a matter that requires consideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability is concerned and the parties are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be decided in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.1.09. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-