IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 3046 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.390/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ---------------------- FENNY ABRAHAM,VALIAMKUNNATH HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, GOPU KURIAN,AGED 30,S/O.I.J.KURIAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE,AMALAGIRI P.O,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT 1 AND 3 ------------------------ 1. DEVASSY,S/O.VARKEY,VEMBILLY HOUSE, THAMARACHALKARA,KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 2. MRS.MARY VARGHESE,W/O.VARGHESE MATHEW, MAPPURATH HOUSE,HOUSE NO.4/X,ALUVA. 3. BIJU THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.SUGUNAN FOR R1 SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF FOR R2 SMT.MOLLY JACOB FOR R2 SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. FOR R2 SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF FOR R2 SMT.U.M.FOUSIA FOR R2 SMT.T.V.SREEJA FOR R2 SMT.M.KABANI DINESH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 3046 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV) No.390/2001. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 38,000/- and directed the 1st respondent to pay the amount. It is against that decision the 1st respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The 1st respondent has not contested the case before the tribunal and the 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations. He further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent, driver of the lorry. The contention of the 1st respondent in the claim petition namely the appellant is to the effect that he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition and therefore he is not liable and further 3rd respondent was not his driver. Therefore any vicarious liability for the act of the 3rd respondent cannot be fastened on 1st respondent. Unfortunately, the tribunal did not M.A.C.A.No. 3046/2008 -2- have the opportunity to consider these points as it was not raised and the 2nd respondent in the written statement also did not state that she was not the owner of the vehicle. It is not the mere registration certificate that has to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the ownership of the vehicle. Under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person in possession by virtue of an agreement can also be the owner. Under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, the parting of possession coupled with receipt of consideration will amount to divestiture of title and therefore a sale under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act is not on the basis of the transfer of registration certificate. This Court in considerable number of decisions had taken the view that a transfer certificate is a procedure formality that has to be completed after the sale of the vehicle and therefore it is not the registration certificate alone that can decide the ownership. So in order to arrive at a proper decision that who was the owner of the vehicle at the date of the accident, the matter requires reconsideration. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with liberty to the appellant herein to file a written statement raising the contention and M.A.C.A.No. 3046/2008 -3- permitting other parties to raise additional pleadings if they want to do so and thereafter the court is directed to frame appropriate issue and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 16.2.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm