Registered vehicle owner's liability is affirmed under Motor Vehicles Act unless formal ownership transfer is documented, protecting accident victims' rights.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the first respondent/ registered owner of the offending vehicle, in O.P(MV) No.561/2008 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants, who are the legal representative of deceased Sujith and respondents 6 to 9 are respondents 2 to 5 in the above OP(MV).

2. According to the claimants, on 07.09.2006, while the victim Sujith was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AK 1426 through Tippu Sultan Road, when he reached at Bhajanamadam bus stop, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AJ 4127 ridden by the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, coming from opposite direction hit the motorcycle of the victim and thereby he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the tribunal.

3. Before the tribunal, the first, third and additional fifth respondents filed written statements separately denying the allegation that the second respondent rode the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the first respondent is the owner of the offending motorcycle, since the registration certificate was in the name of the first respondent and there was no change of ownership. It was also held that the third respondent was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and on such payment, the third respondent was allowed to recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹3,70,810/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the grant of right of recovery to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner, the first respondent has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. Though notice was served on the additional fifth respondent, he chose not to appear before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant herein/first respondent in O.P(MV) submitted that he was the previous owner of the offending vehicle, motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-8/AJ 4127 ridden by the second respondent- Shakeer. It is also submitted that the vehicle was transferred to additional fifth respondent-Ansari by the first respondent and he had produced before the tribunal an indemnity bond, jointly executed by the additional fifth respondent along with rider Shakeer in favour of the appellant undertaking to indemnify the liability of compensation which may be awarded in O.P(MV) No.561/2008. It is his case that the tribunal did not consider the indemnity bond produced and passed an award directing the appellant to compensate the claimants for the injuries sustained, for violation of policy conditions that the second respondent rider was not having a valid driving licence. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the additional fifth respondent filed a written statement before the tribunal admitting that the appellant, who was the first respondent, had transferred the vehicle to his name and hence, it was the liability of the additional fifth respondent to compensate the claimant and not the appellant herein. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Said Mohammed v. Rema [ 1995 (2) KLT 343 ], Rajasthan State Road Tr