IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A. No. 30 of 2005() --------------------- O.P.(MV)1251/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY & KRISHNAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS, NEDUNGAD, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O. KELUKURUP, RESIDING AT 2/231, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, ATHIKUZHI, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. SHANMUGHAN, S/O. PAZHANIMALA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KENAMPULLY KACHERIMEDU, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, DOOR NO.10/290, G.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN KOSHY - R2 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 30 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV) No. 1251/98. There was a collision between a Moped and a Bike resulting in sustainment of injury to the rider of the Moped. He had filed an application for compensation. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. Further held that there was no insurance coverage and therefore directed the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition to pay the compensation. Against that decision the present appeal is filed by respondents 1 & 2 in the claim application. 2. Heard the Counsel for both sides. On a perusal of the award it can be seen that the present appellants namely respondents 1 & 2 had raised a contention that the vehicle has been sold to one Sekharan and they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal did not raise an issue regarding the same. The claimant did not take any steps to implead Mr. Sekharan. M.A.C.A.No. 30/2005 2 Under the Sale of Goods Act transfer of Registration Certificate is not necessary for a valid sale. Going by Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act also a person in possession can be said to be the owner. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. So far as the policy is concerned, the policy has been taken only after 12 days after the accident, so at any rate the Insurance Company will not be liable. So the question to be decided is whether Mr. Narayanankutty was the owner or Mr. Sekharan was the owner of the vehicle. Along with the memorandum of appeal the appellants have produced a copy of the delivery note indicating transfer on 10.3.96. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration by the court below. There is a question of negligence also. Hence the matter has to go back and the appellants are directed to produce documents on that behalf. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The claimant in the petition is directed to take steps to implead Mr. Sekharan and appellants herein are directed to furnish the address of Mr. Sekharan and after impleading him, respondents 1 & 2 as well as Mr. Sekharan are permitted to file a written statement and claimant is also permitted to file any M.A.C.A.No. 30/2005 3 rejoinder if necessary. Thereafter Court shall decide the question in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the court below on 6.8.2008. The amount deposited and lying before the court shall remain there till a final disposal of the matter. As far as possible the Tribunal shall try to dispose of the matter within 4 months from the date of appearance of the parties in the court below. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm