IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 2322 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1035/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREEKUMAR, S/O. NAGAPPAN NAIR, KUMAR SADANAM, PERUTHAKONAM, KOALLAYIL VILLAGE, MANCHAVILAKOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NISSAR, S/O. MOHAMMED KASIM, PUTHUVAL, AYINKAMAM, PARASSALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2322 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)No.1035/2003. An interesting question that arises for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to get the compensation. The reason attributed by the insurance company is to the effect that the claimant was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident and being an owner, he is not liable to be covered by any policy and therefore the owner is not entitled to claim compensation. That argument is perfectly acceptable and it is in tune with law. At the same time it is not properly dealt with by the Tribunal in para-27 of the award. The parties also namely the contesting respondents did not properly let any evidence in support of the said contention. I am informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle had been released in favour of the applicant as the owner and it will go a long way to establish regarding his ownership over the vehicle. It is true that the : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2322 OF 2008 registered owner may be a person who would have effected the sale but the registration not transferred. All those things loom large with respect to the claim of the third parties. Actually under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, when there is parting of possession coupled with receipt of full consideration, there is divestiture of title when sale is completed. Change of registration is only a procedural formality that has to take place when sale is effected. The first respondent namely the registered owner filed a written statement and appended a sale letter whereby he had raised a contention that the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Sreekumar, the applicant in O.P.No.1035/2003. It is a matter which requires serious consideration because the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability, if he is the owner of the vehicle. I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 2. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration to find out whether Mr.Sreekumar was the owner of the vehicle. If the answer is in the affirmative : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2322 OF 2008 regarding the ownership, then the claimant will not be entitled to claim any compensation. So, the parties be permitted to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the applicant has not chosen to enter appearance before this Court, I direct the insurance company to take out notice to him as well as the first respondent so as to have an effective disposal of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 19.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2322 OF 2008