The liability to pay compensation to victims of motor accidents is not the creation of the Act and remains unaffected by the change in the definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Thomas, J.

Smt. Anitha U. Menon, learned counsel for the appellant made a forceful plea that the legal position hitherto followed by this court regarding "owner" of a motor vehicle needs re-consideration in view of the change in the definition as brought by S.2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act').

2. Such a contention was put forward in the following background. On 13-11-1987 around noon a bus driven by its driver with passengers inside, capsized and a number of passengers sustained injuries. They filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Claims Tribunal) against one Divakara Menon who was then the registered owner of the said bus and also against the driver as well as the insurer. But the said Divakara Menon died before he could file his objections. However, his legal representatives who were impleaded filed objections and then contended that ownership of the bus was transferred by Divakara Menon even before the accident to some other person from whom the appellant brought it and it rested with the appellant on the date of accident. Hence the appellant was impleaded as a party. Appellant in his written statement repudiated the claims and contended that he had no connection with the vehicle in question. Claims Tribunal, on evidence, concluded that the actual owner of the bus, at the time of accident, was the appellant and that the bus was then driven by a driver employed by the appellant. C1 aims Tribunal thereupon directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount awarded in favour of different claimants. These appeals are in challenge of two such awards.

3. In fairness to the learned counsel, we must put on record that she has also assailed the finding on fact that appellant was the real owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. But the evidence on that aspect seems to be strong against the appellant. R.W.1 who is one of the legal representatives of Divakara Menon has deposed that on the date of accident the bus was in the ownership of the appellant. He produced Ext. R3 agreement dated 4-4-1988 to show that ownership of the bus was transferred by the appellant to one Premarajan. Till then appellant was its owner as the registered owner had transferred the ownership. If the above version of R.W.1 can be accepted, then the position is that on the date of accident ownership of the bus was with the appellant. In this context, we point out that the title displayed on the bus service, when the accident happened, was "P. V.S.". That title is said to be the acronym formed with the first three letters of appellant's name. As against those items of evidence appellant could not adduce any contra evidence. Even the appellant did not mount the witness box. Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that the actual ownership of the bus rested with the appellant on the date of accident.

4. Before we deal with the contention now raised by the learned counsel, we may point out that this court has held on successive occasions that the liability to pay compensation in accident cases is that of the transferee owner of the vehicle if the registered owner had transferred its ownership before the accident. A Division Bench consisting of Paripoornan, J. (as His Lordship then was) and one of us (Thomas, J.) has observed in Kunjuraman v. Saramma (1986 KLT 742) that "the actual owner can be different from the registered owner and if it is proved that the registered owner has transferred the ownership to a different person the tortious liability will have to be borne by the transferee despite non-transfer of the registration". Though without reference to the above decision, another Division Bench of this court (John Mathew and Balakrishnan, JJ.) has taken the same view in Swaminathan v. Jayalakshmi Amma (1987 (2) KLT 292). Yet another Division Bench (Bhat, J. - as His Lordship then was and Guttal, J.) has also taken the same view in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamee