IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 847 of 2004(B) ----------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.610/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY) .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- BIJU, S/O. DEVASSIA, THARAVYIL HOUSE, P.O. KANICHAR, PERAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & SUPPL.RESPONDENT NO.4: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON @ FRANCIS, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, KARUVANCHAL P.O. 2. M.P. PRAMEELA BAI, W/O. BABU, P.O. CHOMBALA, THALASSSERY (VIA.), KANNUR. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MAHE. 4. SREEMANI SREEDHARAN, POURNAMI, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K, R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV)No.610/1998. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 16.8.1997 and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.4,450/=, exonerated the registered owner and the insurance company from the liability and affixed the liability on respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. It is against that award, the claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum awarded as well as exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. 2. Heard. So far as the quantum is concerned, the accident is of the year 1997. The claimant did suffer only some contusions and abrasions and he was treated in a Primary Health Centre for seven days. There was no serious injury at all for him and the Tribunal has considered the matter in the correct perspective and arrived at a decision fixing the quantum at Rs,4,450/=. It does : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004 not call for any interference. 3. The next question is regarding the liability of the insurance company. Admittedly the 4th respondent was the registered owner at the time of the accident and third respondent was the insurance company. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that by virtue of an agreement dated 9.11.1996 he was parted with possession of the vehicle and that the second respondent has become the owner of the vehicle. It is the case of the second respondent that the 1st respondent had stolen the vehicle and therefore she is not liable. The learned Tribunal found the case of theft is not proved for want of materials and therefore did not accept that contention of the second respondent. 4. The short question that has to be decided by this Court is what will be the impact of a transfer by the 4th respondent to the second respondent though the registration is changed in the year 1998. For this one has to go to the sale under the Sale of Goods Act. Under the Sales of Goods Act handing over possession on payment of consideration : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004 would amount to divestiture of title and therefore sale is completed on payment of consideration and passing of possession. Provision in the Motor Vehicles Act regarding transfer of registration is only a subsequent conduct after the sale rather it is an act subsequent to the act of sale. Therefore the courts have held for considering the question of transfer the change of registration is not imperative at that point of time. Further going by the definition of the word owner in the Motor Vehicles Act, the person in possession shall also be an owner of the vehicle. I find that there is a sale by the 4th respondent in favour of the second respondent on 9.11.1996 and there is a valid policy standing in the name of the 4th respondent at the time of the accident. Prior to the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it has been held that insurance being a contract between the insurer and the insured, if there is a change of ownership without the knowledge of the insurer, there cannot be a valid insurance contract or the courts held that there is absolute privity of contract between the insured and the insurer. Finding the difficulty faced by the third party in : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004 such cases, the legislature in its wisdom introduced Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby it was stated that by virtue of the provisions under Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, whenever a vehicle is transferred, there is a deemed transfer of the policy subject to certain conditions incorporated in Section 157(2). So here is a case where there is a deemed transfer. The insurance company cannot canvass for the position that it is not liable because of the lack of privity of contract. Therefore, I hold that the insurance company is liable. 5. In the result, the appeal is disposed of confirming the quantum of compensation at Rs.4,450/= with interest as ordered by the Tribunal with a further direction that the insurance company is liable and it shall pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004 : 6 : M.A.C.A.NO.847 OF 2004