IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 760 of 2004() -------------------------------- OPMV.607/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMEDKHAN, PALLIKIZHAKETHIL VEEDU, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 & 4: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELAMMA RAJU, W/O. LATE RAJU. P.G., PUTHEN BUNGLOW, MANCODE P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 2. LIJU P. RAJU (MINOR) S/O. LATE RAJU, DO. DO. 3. LINU P. RAJU, (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. V.S. CHACKO (FATHER OF THE DECEASED RAJU), DO. 5. KUNJAMMA, DO. DO. 6. RAHIM, CHAYAKKARAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRATHUPARA P.O., THIDI (VIA), KALANJOOR. 7. PAREED, VATTAKUNUPUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, MARADI VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 8. MOHAMMED HANEEFA EDANNU MASOOR, CHAYAKKARA PARAMBIL VEEDU, THIDY, NIRATHUPARA, KOODAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R6 & R8 SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R6 & R8 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R1 SRI.H.SIVARAMAN FOR R7 SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN FOR R7 SRI.T.J.SALIM FOR R7 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 760 OF 2004 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT ----------------- Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the first respondent in OP(MV) No. 607/95 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. He was the registered owner of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KBF/4779. Respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the wife, minor children and parents of deceased Raju who died in a motor accident that occurred April 8, 1995 at about 9.30 a.m. at Kalanjoor Public road. The accident happened while the deceased was riding his motor cycle, he was knocked down by the offending lorry driven by the 2nd respondent in the O.P. Deceased died on the spot. Alleging negligence against the driver of the offending lorry, 2nd respondent the claimants filed the O.P before the Tribunal under 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. M.A.C.A No. 760 OF 2004 2 2. The O.P was filed initially against appellant and the 6th respondent, the driver of the lorry. Subsequently additional respondent 3 was impleaded in the O.P stating that he was the owner of the offending lorry. But the appellant/first respondent, the registered owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement contended that he has transferred the lorry to the additional 4th respondent. He was also impleaded in the OP. As the claimants have no case against the 3rd respondent in the O.P his claim against third respondent in the O.P was disallowed. 3. The first respondent in the O.P who is the appellant herein in his written statement contended that he had sold the lorry to the additional 4th respondent in the O.P. The 2nd respondent in the O.P, the driver of the offending vehicle admitted the accident but denied the liability. The 4th respondent, the subsequent owner of the offending lorry filed a written statement stating that he has nothing to do with the offending vehicle. The first claimant, the widow was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the M.A.C.A No. 760 OF 2004 3 side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent in the O.P, the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. The first respondent in the O.P has now come up in appeal challenging the above findings of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and that of the claimants. 5. The specific case of the appellant , first respondent in the O.P was that he was not the owner of the offending lorry at the time of accident and it was owned by additional 4th respondent in the O.P who is the 8th respondent in this appeal and that therefore the Tribunal is not justified in awarding compensation against him. There is no substance in the above contention. It is seen from the records that the counsel had entered appearance for the appellant/ 6th respondent and contended that appellant has transferred the vehicle to the additional 4th respondent in the O.P and it was on M.A.C.A No. 760 OF 2004 4 that basis, the additional 4th respondent was impleaded in the O.P. Therefore the allegation of the appellant that he has not executed any vakkalath or any document in respect of the claim petition to the counsel who had appeared for him before the tribunal appears to be baseless and therefore we are not able to accept the same. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in passing the award against the appellant/the first respondent and the 6th respondent, the 2nd respondent in the O.P. No other points is argued before us. That being so we find no merit in the appeal and the same has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. A.K. BASHEER Judge P.Q.BARKATH ALI Judge pkk