IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 1477 of 2007(G) --------------------------------- OPMV.848/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- K.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O VELAPPAN, KATTUKULATHIL HOUSE, AGALOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.VENUGOPAL SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 : ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KALLIYANI, W/O VELAYUDHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MARIYATHODI HOUSE, KAYILIAD POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. MANOJ, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O VASU, KALLIKATTIL HOUSE, AGALOOR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, FAIZAL BUILDING, NEW BAZAR, OTTAPALAM. * 4. MR.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHEERIKOTTIL HOUSE, AGALOOR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK ADV. SRI.RANJIT SREENIVAS - R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R3 * ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.09.2008 IN I.A.NO.1740 OF 2007 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 1477 of 2007(G) ORDER ON I.A.NO.1739 OF 2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1477 OF 2007 DISMISSED 26.09.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 1477 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P(MV) No.848/2003. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.16,640/- with 6% interest and costs. As per the award, it was found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore, the registered owner was directed to reimburse the amount to the Insurance Company. The contention of the registered owner is to the effect that he had sold the vehicle to one Peethambaran and Peethambaran was the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Definition of an owner under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act takes in also a person who by virtue of an agreement is in possession. Unfortunately, though a contention had been raised to this effect, no issue had been framed and no consideration had been done with respect to the transfer alleged to be effected by the registered owner in favour of Peethambaran. So far as M.A.C.A.No. 1477 / 2007 2 the award is concerned, it has to be held that when there is no driving licence, in the light of the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh reported in [2004(1) K.L.T. 781(SC)], the Insurance Company has to pay the amount and get it recovered from the insured. This court in the decision of Ashraf Vs. Fathima reported in [2004(2)K.L.T. 598] held that when the policy stands in the name of a registered owner and as there is no contract of insurance between the person who is defacto in possession and Insurance Company liability of the registered owner would continue to remain as the policy holder has to satisfy the award of reimbursement to the Insurance Company. It appears to be correct approach and therefore, those aspects do not deserve any disturbance. But in this case, the question that will again revolve is who is the owner in possession on the date of the accident as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If Peethambaran is the owner of the vehicle, then necessarily he will be answerable to the transferor and to remiburse the amount paid by the registered owner. Therefore in order to facilitate that point, I give an opportunity to the appellant herein to M.A.C.A.No. 1477 / 2007 3 implead Mr. Peethambaran as a party and after service of notice and filing of written statement, the tribunal is directed to consider the question who was the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of the accident and if it is found that Peethambaran is the owner of the vehicle, then since the insured has paid the amount, he should be permitted to recover that amount from Peethambaran by execution of the very same award. For this limited purpose, the award under challenge is set aside. The junction of the Insurance company as well the claimant is unnecessary for the disposal of the case. They can cooperate but their presence need not be insisted. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 10/11/2008. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm