IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1205 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1343/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------- UZHUTHUPAL ROY @ KURIAN, S/O. KURIAN, TRIPPANGATTOOR AMSOM, POILOOR DESOM, VAZHAMALA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KUNIYIL VINODAN, S/O. KANNAN, KANDAMKUNNU AMSOM, MAMBARAM DESOM, AYITHARA, P.O. AYITHARA. 2. K.P.RAHOOF, S/O. POKKU HAJI, P.P.K. MANZIL, P.O. NEERVELI, KUTHUPARAMBA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HEAD OFFICE, 24 WHITES ROAD, MADRAS. 4. KUNNUMBROM PRASANNAN, S/O. KUKNHAMBU, KUNNUMBROM HOUSE, KANDAMKUNNU AMSOM, KAIDERI, P.O. AYITHARA, MAMBARAM. 5. KRISHNA SAGAR, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN, UMESH BHAVAN, NARAVOOR, P.O. KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM - R2 & 4 SRI.NIJOE MATHILUNKAL JOSEPH - R2 & 4 SRI.C.A.CHACKO - R1 SRI.R.SURENDRAN - R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1205 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)1343/98. The claimant aged 16 years at the time of the accident sustained fracture of the nasal bone and maxilla and was initially treated in the Government Hospital and later he continued treatment in another hospital for 13 days. Or in other words, altogether he was inpatient for a period of 19 days. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.30,500/- and directed the first respondent, driver and the 5th respondent the alleged owner to compensate as there was no valid insurance coverage for the vehicle. The claimant has challenged these findings, one, on the question of quantum and the second regarding the fixation of liability on the 5th respondent. 2. Let me first consider about the quantum of compensation. The claimant has failed in S.S.L.C. class and M.A.C.A. 1205 OF 2004 -:2:- it is submitted that he can only do manual work and therefore the injury sustained by him in the nature of nasal bone fracture and maxilla fracture would certainly affect his working capacity in the years to come. The claimant himself presented before a Medical Board and got a disability certificate which fixed the disability only at 4%. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation on the basis of that certificate. So after producing a document and relying on it, the claimant cannot turn and say it is not proper. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind even in the Medical disability certificate there is a reference to the difficulty in breathing, most probably, sustained on account of the fracture of the nasal bone and it may affect his capacity and there will be loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for him for a considerable length of time, the Tribunal has awarded only a nominal amount of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities which I feel has to be enhanced by another Rs.3,000/- taking into consideration that the disability compensation has been fixed just on the percentage basis. M.A.C.A. 1205 OF 2004 -:3:- Similarly, a fracture of the nasal bone coupled with the maxilla would have caused lot of irritation and excruciating pain and the very factum of the inpatient treatment for 19 days and visiting hospitals thereafter show the agony which this young boy had undergone. I enhance that compensation also at Rs.3,000/- and therefore the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,000/-. 3. The learned counsel contends before me that the Tribunal should have fixed the liability on the registered owner and not on the 5th respondent. A reference to the definition of owner under the M.V. Act takes in a registered owner but it also states that suppose a person is in possession by virtue of an agreement etc. he also can be deemed to be an owner. Transfer of movable property is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Sale of Goods Act's conditions will be satisfied if a person pays the consideration and the other person totally divests himself of the ownership of the movable by delivering the movable to the person. The Division Bench of this Court had considered M.A.C.A. 1205 OF 2004 -:4:- about this impact of the registration certificate in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jameela Beevi (1991 (1) KLT 832). It was held that, “It can be seen that it is not the registered owner of a motor vehicle which confers ownership on the owner. On the other hand, the registration certificate follows the ownership and not vice versa and ultimately the Court held that what is of the essence is the actual transfer of property in the vehicle and not a certificate of registration. Therefore I hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that R5 was the owner of the vehicle and had fixed the liability on the 5th respondent. R5 has also admitted his ownership in the written statement. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.6,000/- and respondents 1 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said sum with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and they are directed to deposit it within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. I also make it clear that for the M.A.C.A. 1205 OF 2004 -:5:- period from 1.1.02 till realisation the rate of interest is enhanced to 7% and not 6%, on the whole amount. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-