IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 249 of 2006() ------------------------------- OPMV.1149/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO. 1149/98: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIBU VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PADY P.O., KODALY. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.M.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.1149/98: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANEESH (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER LENIN, THAYYIL HOUSE, KODALY DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR 2. BABU K.K., S/O. KARUNAN, KUKKULAM HOUSE, KODALY, MURINGAKKAL. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 249 of 2006() I.A.NO. 329 OF 2006 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 249 2006 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE 17.12.2008 // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 249 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) No.1149/98. The claimant a 4 ½ year old boy sustained injuries in a road accident. It is contended that an autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent came in a terrific speed and hit on the boy resulting in fracture of the left femur and left tibia. He was inpatient in the St. James Hospital, Chalkudy. The driver remained exparte and the owner contented that he was not the owner of the vehicle. The said contention was raised only by way of an additional written statement. The tribunal did not find in favour of the 2nd respondent regarding the sale of the vehicle and therefore directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount jointly and severally. It is against that decision, the 2nd respondent has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the tribunal has erred in arriving at a decision regarding the ownership of the vehicle. He would contend before me that there was a sale agreement as early as on 23.7.97 M.A.C.A. 249/2006 -2- by which the vehicle had been sold to the 1st respondent and that the accident had taken place on 18.12.97 and therefore he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Though he filed an original written statement, he did not mention anything about the sale of the vehicle which would have been a fundamental factor in a case of this nature. Later he had filed an additional written statement wherein he had averred that the vehicle had been sold to the first respondent in the claim petition by virtue of an agreement. But unfortunately the date of sale or the agreement is not mentioned in the additional written statement. What is produced before the tribunal is a postal receipt intimating the authorities about the sale of the vehicle and the said postal receipt is also admittedly after the date of the accident. So with these materials the tribunal did not accept the case of the 2nd respondent regarding the same. The learned counsel had made available before me for perusal a copy of the letter sent to the R.T.O as well as an agreement. Even if it is accepted for argument that there was an agreement, a perusal of that agreement would show that it was decided to sale the vehicle for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/- and towards the same Rs. 1,000/- was handed over as advance but M.A.C.A. 249/2006 -3- the vehicle was given possession to the 1st respondent. The sale of a vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sales of Goods Act. When will one get divested of his title is only when that person receives the consideration and parts with possession. There must be an out and out satisfaction of these conditions to complete a sale under the Sale of Goods Act. I am conscious of the fact that Section 31 of the old Motor Vehicles Act or new provisions regarding transfer are procedure formalities that has to be completed after the sale of the vehicle in order to inform the transport authorities regarding change of ownership. So if a person is able to prove before the court regarding the divestiture of title, then a sale can be said to be complete. Unfortunately in this case the documents relied upon does not show the completion of any sale. No other documents is forth coming to prove regarding the completion of the sale. Even the letter is sent after the accident had taken place and therefore the materials supplied before the court are grossly inadequate to substantiate the contention of sale by R2 in favour of R1. Therefore I cannot find fault with the tribunal in arriving at a decision that the sale is not proved. So the finding of the tribunal does not call for any interference and the appeal is dismissed. I M.A.C.A. 249/2006 -4- hope and wish that the respondent will pay the compensation due to 4 ½ year old boy at least after a gap of 12 years. The M.A.C.A is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm