Case: Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :Car bearing No. KLO 4828, driven by the 1st Respondent (herein), met with an accident on 9th April, 1987. One of the passengers viz. one Anthony Alexander was seriously injured in that accident. The said Anthony Alexander thereafter succumbed to his injuries on 10th April, 1987. Respondents 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the said Anthony Alexander. They filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) against the Appellant, the 1st Respondent and the 8th Respondent (Insurance Company)3. Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had sold the car, on 7th May, 1986, to one Smt. M.K. Bhavani. It was claimed that Smt. Bhavani had thereafter sold the car, on 12th May, 1986, to Sh. Aboobacker. It was claimed that on 15th August, 1986 Sh. Aboobacker had sold the car to one George Mathew. The said George Mathew had supposedly thereafter sold the car to one Roy Thomas on 18th August, 1986. The Appellant claimed that on the date of the accident the car belonged to Roy Thomas. However it was an admitted position that the transfer of ownership of the car was never intimated to the R.T.O. and that in the records of R.T.O. the name of the Appellant continued to be shown as the owner4. An Insurance policy bearing No. 100505/22/1/0067/86 had been issued by the 8th Respondent. It was valid from 25th November, 1986 to 24th November, 1987. This Policy had been issued in the name of the Appellant. Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had not taken out the insurance Policy5. The 1st Respondent claimed, before the MACT, that the real owner was the Appellant. The 1st Respondent claimed that he was employed by the Appellant. The 8th Respondent claimed that the Policy was only an Act Policy (Third Party Policy) and, therefore, it did not cover liability towards passengers6. Before MACT the Appellant examined himself. He also examined Smt. M.K. Bhavani, her son Sh. Aboobacker and George Mathew to the show that the car had been sold by him. The 1st Respondent gave evidence to the effect that the Appellant was still the owner of the car7. After considering the evidence MACT gave an Award dated 5th May, 1988. It held that the Appellant was not the owner of the car and was, therefore, not liable. It held that the Insurance Company was also not liable as the Policy had been got issued in the name of the Appellant when he was not the real owner. It held that the driver was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. MACT passed an Award in a sum of Rs. 1,40,700/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum. MACT held that the driver was bound to pay the sum to the claimants8. The 1st Respondent and Respondents 1 to 6 filed Appeals before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the Appeals by the impugned Judgment dated 30th January, 1991. The High Court held that all the documents disclosed the Appellant to be the owner of the car. The High Court held that the Appellant was thus the owner of the car. The High Court held that as such owner the Appellant was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The High Court confirmed the finding that the driver had been rash and negligent and was the cause of the accident. The High Court held that the Policy was an Act only (Third Party Policy) and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. The High Court however reduced the compensation to a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 7th July, 1987. Hence these Civil Appeals.

Reasoning:
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the Appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so.19. In this case only the first sheet of the policy is on record. This clearly shows that the policy is a third party policy. The terms and conditions governing this Policy are not on record. What was shown to Court was terms and conditions of a comprehensive policy relating to private cars. These cannot apply to this policy. In the absence of terms and conditions governing this policy it is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Iyer that this policy covered liability to occupants of the car. As has been set out hereinabove, the law on this subject is clear, a third party policy does not cover liability to gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The 8th Respondent Company will, therefore, not be liable to reimburse the Appellant.We are unable to accept this submission. It has not been the Appellants case, either before MACT or before the High Court, that the policy contained any term which covered liability to passengers. Before MACT the case was that the Appellant was not the owner and was, therefore, not liable. Before the High Court the case that because of the Circular issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee the Insurance Company was liable. The High Court held that the Circular only dealt with comprehensive policy. That Circular has not been produced before us. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that the Circular only covered comprehensive policies cannot be challenged. Now a new case cannot be allowed to be made out. Section II(1)(a) relied upon is a term which is incorporated pursuant to that Circular. If the Circular only applies to comprehensive policies then this terms also applies to comprehensive policies only. In our view it is now too late in the day to call upon the 8th Respondent to produce the original terms and conditions.