IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 2253 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.807/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV). -------------------- K.P.VINOD, SREEPADAMA HOUSE, KADAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIYATHODU. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GIJI, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR, VECHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KOTTAYAM. 3. JYOTHY, D/O.GOPI, REP. BY GOPIKUTTAN NAIR, SREEMANGALATH HOUSE, MANNAR KARA, KADUTHURUTHI VILLAGE. PIN 686 404 ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO.2253/2007 ORDER ON I.A. NOS. 2926/07, 1767/2008 IN MACA. NO.2253/2007 DISMISSED 23.07.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2253 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)807/03. The registered owner of the vehicle who is saddled with the liability of reimbursement of the amount to the insurance company has come up in appeal. It is specifically contended by him that he had sold the vehicle to one Azeez on 19.9.00 and it is stated in paragraph 3 of his written statement. This Azeez was not impleaded as a party and the question who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident was not adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. 2. It has to be stated that being a third party the insurance company is bound to pay compensation and get it reimbursed from the registered owner for the reason it is in his name the policy stands and the contract of insurance is between him and the insurance company. This matter M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007 -:2:- precisely arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court reported in Ashraf v. Fathima (2004 (2) KLT 598) and this Court held that, “Here, the insured is still the registered owner as admittedly, the appellant, registered owner, did not inform the matter of transfer to the insurance company and insurance is not transferred. The insurance company cannot recover it from the de facto owner because there is no contractual agreement between the de facto owner and the insurance company. The insurance company can recover it only from the insured.” 3. So in the light of this decision and as the policy stands in the name of the appellant the order passed by the Tribunal for reimbursement of the amount by the registered owner cannot be found fault with. 4. Now, a larger question arises for consideration. The definition of the word 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle's Act takes in a person who by virtue of an M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007 -:3:- agreement of sale is in possession of the vehicle. It is contended that under the sale of goods Act the divestiture of title coupled with the transfer of possession and receipt of consideration completes a transfer or sale of movable property and Section 31 of the old Registration Act is only a procedural formality for the change of registration. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court as early as in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jameela Beevi (1991 (1) KLT 832). Therefore, a question may arise that if the proposed person is the owner in possession of the property of the vehicle on the date of accident certainly he would be liable to pay the amount to the registered owner for the reason the registered owner under the terms of the contract of insurance is paying the amount to the insurance company. So this is a matter that requires adjudication. 5. In the result, the award passed is partly set aside and the matter is remitted back for the purpose of impleading the proposed person mentioned in paragraph 3 of the written statement of the 2nd respondent and the Court M.A.C.A. 2253 OF 2007 -:4:- shall adjudicate whether the said person was the owner in possession on the date of the accident and if it is so, has to make provision for the registered owner to get reimbursement of the amount which he is bound to pay being a registered owner from the said person. The appellant herein can take steps to implead this Azeez mentioned in paragraph 2 and the matter be adjudicated after hearing all concerned. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.8.08. As a breathing time, the recovery against the present appellant be deferred for a period of two months. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-