Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5971
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
T.HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
K.P.SUKUMARAN AND OTHERS – Respondent
MACA/1533/2007
SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY, SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNAN FOR R1,R2, SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R4
Registered ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act maintains liability for accidents unless a proper transfer and registration have occurred.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Compensation for Death - MV Act Sections 2(19), 2(30), 50 - The court interpreted the definitions of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act to determine liability for compensation, concluding that registered ownership entails responsibility despite prior sale, unless legally transferred.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was the registered owner of a jeep involved in an accident that killed a minor. The appellant claimed to have sold the vehicle before the accident but did not execute a proper transfer of registration, resulting in a claim for compensation against him.
Issues: Whether the appellant should bear liability for compensation despite claiming to have sold the vehicle prior to the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that registered ownership of a vehicle constitutes liability for accidents unless legal ownership is properly transferred and registered with the relevant authorities.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Joseph Francis J.
The appellant herein was the first respondent in O.P. (M.V.)
No: 160 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur and the respondents 3 and 4 are the respondents 2 and 3 respectively in the O.P. The O.P. was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein claiming a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation for the death of their minor daughter Nikhila.
2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:
On 17.1.1999, the 2nd respondent along with her daughter Nikhila was walking towards south through eastern side of Tirur B.P. Angadi road. When they reached at police lane, at about 11 a.m., a jeep bearing no. KL 10B 8075 came from north side and knocked down Nikhila causing grievous injury to her. The injured, as a result of the accident, died at Government Hospital, Tirur. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent, who was driving the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident.
3. The appellant is the registered owner and 4th respondent is the Insurance Company.
4. The appellant contends that, as a matter of fact, the appellant had sold the vehicle to one Yahutty on 28.8.1998 itself, and, since the appellant was out of India, there was no chance for him to contest the claim. So, the award was passed by the Tribunal on 29.3.2004. The appellant and the 3rd respondent remained exparte. The learned Tribunal allowed the petition and allowed the petitioners to recover a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation with 6% interest from 24.3.2001, till the date of realisation and cost of Rs.1,500/- from the respondents 1 to 3. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount awarded. It was further held that the Insurance Company is entitled for reimbursement from respondents
1 and 2 in the O.P. (M.V).
5. The appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte. The learned Tribunal set aside the ex parte only for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the appellant and the Insurance company. After the ex parte was set aside, the appellant filed a written statement contending that he had sold the jeep to Yahutty and there was no violation of the condition of the policy. The learned Tribunal considered only one point as to whether the Insurance Company was entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it from the appellant. Since the mutation was not effected in the registry and the name of the appellant was still in the Registration Certificate, the learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant also.
6. Against that award the first respondent filed this appeal.
7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for contesting respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sold the offending jeep as per Ext.B3 agreement and it was not proper to hold that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
9. There is no dispute that the accident occurred on 17.1.1999.
According to the appellant, he had sold the jeep to one Yahootty on 28.8.98 as per Ext.B3 agreement. As per that agreement, the appellant sold the jeep No:KL 10B 8075 to Yahootty, for a consideration of Rs.1,92,500/-. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the jeep was not transferred in the name of Yahootty after the jeep was transferred to him as per Ext.B3 agreement. There is also no dispute that the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the jeep even after Ext.B3 agreement. It is an admitted fact that on the date of accident the jeep was insured in the name of the appellant and not in the name of Yahootty. There is no evidence to show that any intimation was given to the Insurance Company regarding the transfer of the vehicle.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale of the vehicle is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and the transfer of vehicle is complete upon payment of consideration an
