IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 1112 of 2001(C) ---------------------------------- OPMV.349/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- R.A.MUREKESAN, RAMANKULATH HOUSE, PANNIYAMAM, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 &3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, S/O.CHEEKU, KALMATHURUTH HOUSE, GOTHURUTH, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR. 2. SUNIL, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHAKKAMALIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM KARA, MOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANAPPAT CENTRE, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN MANNALY- R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) - R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 593 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.7851/2001 IN MFA. NO.1112/2001 DISMISSED 07/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 1112 OF 2001 & M.A.C.A. No. 593 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred against a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in OP(MV) Nos. 348/93 & 349/93. I am referring to the ranks in the claim petition to avoid confusion. The claimants in these cases were the rider and pillion rider in a scooter. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.KLH 2542 ridden by the 1st respondent in the original petition collided with the scooter resulting in sustainment of injuries to the claimants. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.19,600 in OP(MV) 348/93 and Rs.7,500 in OP(MV) 349/93 and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover it back from the 2nd respondent namely R.A. Murekesan. It is this 2nd respondent who has preferred these two appeals contending that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and he cannot be saddled with the liability. 2. So the question that arises for determination is who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. The Tribunal did not consider this matter in the proper perspective. In para 3 it is extracted that the 2nd M.F.A. No. 1112/01 & M.A.C.A. No. 593/05 2 respondent has raised a contention that he is not the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel also made available before me a copy of the written statement. Para 6 of the written statement specifically contains “the 2nd respondent is not the owner of the vehicle.” The Tribunal also did not properly consider the documents produced before it. One of the documents is namely the kychit executed before the Police to take delivery of the vehicle. It is executed by the father of the 1st respondent wherein he admits that the vehicle belongs to Mr. Sunil. But these factors had not been considered. Similarly the same Narayanan, father of Mr. Sunil, who has executed the kychit gave the first information statement where also he refers to Sunil as the owner of the scooter bearing registration No. KLH 2542. It is true that registration is not transferred. Under the Sale of Goods Act, it is not mandatory that in order to become an owner the registration certificate should have been transferred. It has to follow when a transfer is effected. When there is a total divestiture of title and possession on receipt of consideration, a movable sale become complete. These factors had not been taken note of by the Tribunal. 3. The other question to be considered is that even if it is so, whether the Insurance Company will be entitled to get reimbursement of the amount from the person other than a registered owner in the absence M.F.A. No. 1112/01 & M.A.C.A. No. 593/05 3 of a contract of insurance between the defacto person in possession and the Insurance Company. So these are all matters which requires total consideration at the hands of the court below. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration as to so far it related to the inter se liability and with respect to the ownership of the vehicle and the question from whom the Insurance Company is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount. For the said purpose parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. I make it clear that the junction of the claimants are not necessary for disposal of the case. The amount deposited and lying in deposit shall remain there till a final disposal of the matter is done. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps M.F.A. No. 1112/01 & M.A.C.A. No. 593/05 4