IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2252 of 2008() ---------------------------- OPMV.2412/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR ..................... APPELLANT(S): ---------------- GENERAL MANAGER,KUTTUKARAN ENGINE RE-BUILDERS,HEAD OFFICE,MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1.MUHAMMED AMEEN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER ALIYAR V.M,VALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAITHAKKADU KARA,PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2.SHAJU K.J,S/O.JOSEPH K.C, KOLANCHERY HOUSE,NEENDOOR KARA, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE,VADAKKEKKARA P.O. ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 2252 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 ORDER This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P (MV) No.2412/2003. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.31,320/- with 7% interest. Aggrieved by the said decision, the owner has come up in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the owner that the vehicle had been transferred on 16.07.2001 to one Dinesan. The accident had taken place on 29.08.2003 and therefore he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. Admittedly, there was no policy coverage for the vehicle and therefore the claimant has to get his compensation from the person who was the owner of the vehicle. A reading of the definition under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that the registered owner alone is not the person who is the owner of the vehicle. It has been held by this Court in very many decisions, that the sale of a vehicle comes under the purview of the Sale of Goods Act and M.A.C.A. NO.2252/2008 2 when delivery of possession is effected on receipt of consideration. There is a divestiture of title and the change of registration is a condition subsequent to the sale of the vehicle. In other words, a person who has purchased the vehicle for valid consideration and is in possession can also be the owner of the motor vehicle. 3. A perusal of the award would reveal that this Dinesan had admitted the purchase but would contend that he had given the vehicle to one Jayachandran by way of sale and therefore the transfer of registration had been effected in his name. Unfortunately, the claimant did not implead Mr. Dinesan or Mr. Jayachandran on the premise that since the appellant is the registered owner it is his liability to pay. If the appellant is able to establish the transfer of the vehicle and the accident had taken place subsequent to the transfer, then ordinarily he cannot be mulcted with the liability and therefore interest of justice requires a reconsideration of the matter. 4. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the M.A.C.A. NO.2252/2008 3 matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the claimant herein to implead Mr. Dinesan and Mr. Jayachandran and in case they are impleaded, to permit the present appellant to file additional written statement and also to permit all the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contention and then decide who was the owner of the vehicle as contemplated in the Motor Vehicles Act on the date of the accident. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.12.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE SS