IMPORTANT POINT
The registered owner and the permit holder of a vehicle are jointly and severally liable for compensation in accident cases, regardless of the actual ownership transfer status, especially when insurance coverage is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. ARUN, J.

1. The appellant was the additional 5th respondent in O.P. (M.V) No. 740 of 2008 filed by respondents 1 to 4, seeking compensation for the death of Noufal, son of the 1st respondent and brother of respondents 2 to 4. The fatal accident occurred on 29.07.2008, when the stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KL-07 AJ 8303 driven in a rash and negligent manner by the th respondent hit against the motorcycle ridden by Noufal. At the time of the accident, Noufal was aged 24 years and was working as a Service Technician in a private company on a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-. As against the claim for Rs.9,06,500/-(limited to Rs.7,00,000/-) raised by respondents 1 to 4, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,90,000/-. The insurance policy of the bus not being valid on the date of accident, the 8th respondent insurer was exonerated from the liability of paying the compensation.

2. In the claim petition, respondents 1 to 4 had named the th respondent as the registered owner of the vehicle, the 6th respondent as the previous owner and the 7th respondent as the driver of the stage-carriage. In his written statement before the Tribunal, the 6th respondent took up the stand that he was not the owner or insured of the bus at the time of the accident and averred that the vehicle had been transferred to the appellant on 14.08.2006. He further stated that, after the accident, the vehicle was released on Kychit to the 9th respondent at the appellant's instance. Thereupon, respondents 1 to 4 filed an interlocutory application to implead the appellant and the 9th respondent as additional respondents 5 and 6 in the claim petition and the same was allowed by the Tribunal.

3. During the course of its enquiry as to the ownership of the vehicle, the Tribunal found that as per Ext.B1 document dated 14.08.2006, the 6th respondent, who was the registered owner had agreed to sell the vehicle to the appellant and that, after the accident, the bus had been released to the 9th respondent under Ext.B2 Kychit. The Tribunal thereupon concluded that the 5th and 9th respondents have no connection with the vehicle and proceeded to exonerate respondents 5, 6 and 9 from liability. Consequently, the appellant, in his alleged capacity as the owner of the vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation along with 7th respondent driver. The challenge in this appeal is against the mulcting of liability on the appellant by finding him to be the owner of the vehicle.

4. Adv.A.N.Santhosh, learned Counsel for the appellant put forth the following contentions to assail the findings of the Tribunal in that regard:

The 6th respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and the permit stood in the name of the 5th respondent. An agreement for sale of the vehicle entered into between the appellant and the 6th respondent at a much earlier point of time cannot be the basis for finding the appellant to be the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, ownership of the vehicle was never transferred to the appellant in the prescribed manner. The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the M.V.Act' for short) and the precedents on the point leave no room for doubt that the owner and driver are liable to pay the compensation. To buttress the contention, reliance is placed on the definition of owner at Section 2(30) of the M.V.Act, the Apex Court's decisions in P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan, 2008 17 SCC 624 and Pushpa vs. Shakuntala, 2011 (2) SCC 240 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sheji vs. Mohammedali Shehabudeen and Another, 2016 (2) KHC 410. Reference is made to Annexure A1 registration particulars of the vehicle bearing No. KL-07 AJ 8303 to point out that the 6th respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle upto 05.08.2008, on which date the ownership was transferred to the 5th respondent.

5. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel that along with the 6th respondent, the 5th respondent, who was the permit ho