IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 2075 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.204/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- C.P.MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.K.AHAMMED, KUNHI HAJI, 28 YEARS, AAYADATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU AMSOM, CHALAD DESOM, KANNUR, THROUGH P.A.HOLDER OF C.P.NOUFAL, S/O.L.V.ABDUL SALAM, E.P.HOUSE, T.T.ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V.P.RAGHAVAN, M/S.RAMYA TRAVELS, NO.10, 6TH MAIN ROAD, OPP. LIC COLONY, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGLORE-75. 2. VAYALAKKARA MURALI, S/O.BALAN, 34 YEARS, VINAYAKA HOUSE, NEAR TOWN HALL, THALASSERY. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CITY IIND, BANGALORE-560075. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2075 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV)204/00. The claimant has filed an application for damages sustained to the vehicle. The Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that he has not succeeded in proving that he is the owner of the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would content that the Tribunal has not given due credence to Ext.A7 agreement. Tribunal has also observed that Ext.A7 agreement has not been proved properly. Owner of a vehicle is defined under section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It can be the registered owner or the owner who is in possession in pursuance of an agreement. It has also been held by this court that transfer of registration certificate is something which follows after a sale and the sale of movables are covered under section 19 of the sale of Goods Act. What is required for a complete sale under the Sale of Goods Act is the divestiture of title coupled with receipt of consideration and handing over of possession. When these matters are complied with then, one can be MACA No.2075/06 2 classified as an owner who is in possession. A mere non-transfer of registration certificate may not loom large in those cases. Ext.A7 agreement appears to be an agreement for sale whereby it was decided to sell the vehicle for Rs.95,000/- out of which Rs.55,000/- was received as advance amount and the balance amount is to be paid. If in pursuance of the agreement balance amount has been paid and all the formalities are complied, then it can be a complete sale. But it requires evidence. 3. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with an opportunity to the claimant to establish that he is the owner of the vehicle in the eye of law by producing and adducing sufficient document and evidence and to prove the same. Needles to say the Insurance Company is also at liberty to produce documents in support of its contentions. Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh with all the materials available and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.2075/06 3