JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the first respondent in O.P. (M.V.)No.2104/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. It was a claim petition filed by respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of both parties passed an award in favour of the claimants and directed the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation. Second respondent is allowed to recover the compensation from the first respondent, who is the appellant herein. That right of recovery given to the insurance company was challenged before this Court earlier by the appellant/1st respondent by filing M.A.C.A.No. 1112/2007. That appeal was allowed by this Court as per judgment dated 27.11.2007 and remanded the case to the tribunal for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder;

“6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the fact that the vehicle has already been transferred, the appellant has no liability to satisfy the award. Learned counsel strenuously pleaded for an opportunity before the Tribunal to establish his case.

7. Herein, the insurance company has already satisfied the award by depositing the amount. Therefore, by remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the claimants will not be prejudiced also. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal

8. Appeal is allowed, and the case is remanded to the Tribunal. The appellant will take steps to implead the alleged transferee before the Tribunal for a just determination of the issue. All parties are allowed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. The remand is only on the limited question as to whether the vehicle was transferred on the date of the accident. For this purpose, the claimants need not be drawn before the Tribunal also. They will be entitled to withdraw the amount now deposited as per the stipulation already made. The claimants are not arrayed as respondents in this appeal by the owner of the vehicle. We make it clear that the award as regards the quantum of compensation will be treated as final and the said issue need not be reopened by the Tribunal. Until the matter is again decided by the Tribunal, no recovery steps shall be taken by the insurance company.”

3. After remand, no oral evidence is adduced by the appellant/1st respondent. He produced Exts. B3 and B4 agreement before the tribunal and Exts. B5 to B7 produced by the other respondents. Thereafter, the tribunal considered the matter fresh and confirmed the recovery order passed by the tribunal earlier, as per judgment dated 22.01.2010 in the revised judgment. The relevant portion is extracted here under;

“8. As per the case of the petitioner they filed the petition alleging that the first respondent was the owner of the offending bus and the second respondent was the driver of the bus. The 3rd respondent is the insurance company. The first respondent raised a contention that the vehicle was transferred to one San Alex and later it was transferred to the additional 5th respondent pennamma. Now the question to be answered by this court is regarding the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident on the date of accident. The accident was occurred on 21.11.2000 at 9.30 a.m. Ext.B2 is the insurance certificate issued in the name of first respondent Kuttappan for the period from 24.07.2000 to 23.07.2001. This documents makes it clear that on the date of accident the insurance certificate of bus No.KL-5C-9751 stands in the name of first respondent Kuttappan. His case is that he had transferred the vehicle to one San Alex. An agreement dated 19.11.1998 was produced and marked as Ext.B3. It is seen that Kuttappan and San Alex are signed in the agreement. Two witnesses are also seen signed in Ext.B3. However neither the first respondent nor the additional 4th respondent tendered evidence in