IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 310 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1477/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- JUSTIN JACOB, S/O.K.C. VARKEY, KANNOTHARA HOUSE, MEENADOM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. P.R.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.JANAKI, PALANILKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SREEKHANTAMANGLAM PO, DO. KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VIA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. P.STALIN VINO, S/O.PAUL DAS, THYPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM. *(DELETED) 3. AJI MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, KATTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, RUBBER BOARD, PO, PUTHUPPALLY. (THE NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DT.19.2.2008 IN I.A. 2024/2008.) ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.310 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by injured person who got compensation for the injury sustained by him in a road accident caused by the motorbike driven by the third respondent. Admittedly, the first respondent is the registered owner of the motorbike and he was exonerated because of his claim that the vehicle was sold to second respondent who is not a person residing in Kerala. According to the appellant, he could not recover the amount because second respondent's whereabouts are not known. The case of the appellant is that first respondent is liable because the vehicle at the time of accident remained registered in the name of the first respondent. The first respondent has no case that sale of the vehicle was registered with the R.T.O. In the absence of any record about transfer of vehicle, first respondent cannot escape from liability by producing agreement for sale which itself was not produced before the MACT. We, therefore, hold that liability is on the first 2 respondent and if he has sold the vehicle, it is for him to proceed for recovery against second respondent, but after meeting the liability of the appellant. The MACT is directed to proceed for recovery against first respondent leaving freedom to the first respondent to proceed against second respondent and the vehicle, if he is interested. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms