IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 3168 of 2009(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1074/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- KANNAN PEETHAMBARAN, ELANJICKAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KUZHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, SANKRAPPILLY KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. TROY SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, CHEKKACHERRY, THATTARATHATTA, THODUPUZHA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PULIMOOTTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, MOOVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. BABY, S/O.MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, UDAMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 3168 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV)1074/03 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident moved the Court for compensation and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.53,300/- and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount and realise it from respondent No.2 or 4 in the claim petition. It is against that decision the 2nd respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The short point which is canvassed before me is that the 2nd respondent did not get a proper notice from the Tribunal and at the time of accident he was not the owner of the vehicle and he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant by the deeming provisions u/s 157(1) of the M.V.Act, policy runs with the vehicle and not with the individual. There is force in the said contention. The M.A.C.A. 3168 OF 2009 -:2:- legislation in its wisdom had introduced this Section in contravention to S.103A of the old M.V.Act of 1939. Under the old Act it was always considered that the policy of insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured and there was absolute privity of contract and therefore any person beyond that contract cannot enforce the terms of contract. Considering the difficulties that has caused to the third parties the legislature in its wisdom introduces S.157 of the M.V.Act whereby there is a deeming provision which enables the policy to run with the vehicle. There is the further procedure u/s 157(2) of the M.V.Act. But situation may change if the transfer of the vehicle by 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent has already been entered in the registering authorities records and even thereafter if the policy is taken in the name of the old registered owner then it may amount to suppression of materials regarding the transfer to obtain a policy and in such cases the deeming provisions cannot come to the rescue. We are not having any clear picture about the date of transfer of the vehicle and M.A.C.A. 3168 OF 2009 -:3:- even we do not know even the change of registration in the name of R4 at all. So it is desirable that R2 is given an opportunity to contest the case before the Court below by filing a written statement and all the parties, i.e. in between the insurance company, R2 and R4 the matter can be resolved by hearing all of them. Since 4th respondent had not entered appearance here he may be given notice after the parties enter appearance before the Court below. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the recovery clause is concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the discussion made in the previous paragraphs. The 2nd respondent is permitted to file written statement and also all the parties be permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 23.3.2010. M.A.C.A. 3168 OF 2009 -:4:- 3. Needless to say that there should not be any proceedings to recover amount from R2 or R4 till a final decision is taken in the matter. Let the records be sent back along with the order of remand. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-