Kerala High Court
M.D.John vs M.D.John on 22 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 882/2004 DATED 16-10-2009 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT in M.A.C.A./RESPONDENT No.1 IN O.P.(MV):
M.D.JOHN, S/O.M.T.DEVASIA
MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, VAZHAPPALLY P.O.,, CHANGANASSERY.
BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH
RESPONDENTS IN M.A.C.A./PETITIONERS AND RSEPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN
O.P.(MV):
1 KAMALAKSHI AMMA, W/O.BHASKARA PILLAI,
KRISHNAVILASOM, AMBALATHINKALA P.O.,, KATTAKKADA.
2 SREEKUMARAN NAIR K.B.
S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, SREELAKSHMI, ROCKWELL ROAD,,
PALLILANKARA, KALAMASSERY P.O.,, ERNAKULAM.
3 SASIDHARAN NAIR S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI
KRISHNAVILASOM, AMBALATHINKALA P.O.,, KATTAKKADA.
4 CHANDRAN NAIR B.
S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI,, ARCHANA HOUSE, AMBALATHINKALA
P.O.,, KATTAKKADA.
5 REMAKUMARY D/O.BHASKARA PILLAI
KRISHNAVILASOM, AMBALATHINKALA P.O.,, KATTAKKADA.
6 VIJAYAN S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI
KRISHNAVILASOM, AMBALATHINKALA P.O.,, KATTAKKADA.
7 MAHESAN S/O.SUKUMARAN
NJARATHALAKKAL, AMBADKAR COLONY,, A/425, MARANALLOOR,
KANDALA P.O.,, KARINGAL, NEYYATTINKARA.
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
2
8 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
R8 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.268 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.
882/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Neyyattinkkara. It is a claim petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was filed
by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein claiming compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are the
legal heirs of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle
accident. (Hereinafter the parties are referred in accordance
to their rank in the Tribunal).
2. The short facts are like this: The applicants are the
wife, 5 major children of Bhaskara Pillai who died in a motor
vehicle accident on 14.9.03 at 5 p.m. when Bhaskara Pillai
was walking along the right side of the foot path at
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
Thoongampara junction on Thoongampara-Kattakkda public
road. The accident happened when Bhaskara Pillai was
walking through the road and a motor cycle bearing
registration No. KL-5-9903 ridden in a rash and negligent
manner, knocked down the deceased. According to the
claimants, the accident occurred because of the negligence
on the part of the motor cyclist. They claimed compensation
from the respondents 1 to 3 as the owner, driver and insurer
of the motor cycle.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A6 were
marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of the affidavit. After going
through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal passed an
award in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent is
directed to pay the compensation. But the third respondent
is permitted to realise the amount from the first respondent
because the rider of the motor vehicle was not having a valid
licence. Aggrieved by this order, the first respondent who is
alleged to be the owner of the vehicle filed this appeal.
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the Insurance company.
5. The appellant/first respondent submitted that the
vehicle was actually transferred by him to the additional 9 th
respondent in this appeal. The counsel submitted that as per
Ext.B1, which is an application filed before the criminal court
under Section 451 Cr.P.C, 9th respondent admits the
ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, counsel submitted that
there is no liability to the appellant in the light of Section
2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel for the 9 th
respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex court in
Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2018 KHC
6083) in which it is stated that the registered owner
continued to be liable till the transfer of the vehicle is
effected in the records of the Register. The 9 th respondent in
the appeal was impleaded in this appeal but he was not a
party before the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the
alleged transfer of the vehicle by appellant/first respondent
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
is not entered in the registration records before the
registering authority as the owner of the vehicle. In such
circumstances, the decision of the apex court in Naveen
Kumar's case, is squarely applicable. The relevant portion of
the judgment in Naveen Kumar's case (supra) is extracted
hereunder.
"12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges
from the above decisions is that in view of the definition
of the expression 'owner' in S.2(30), it is the person in
whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who,
for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the
'owner'. However, where a person is a minor, the
guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner.
Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of
hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in
possession of the vehicle under that agreement is
treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present
where the registered owner has purported to transfer
the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records
of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle,
he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has
consciously introduced the definition of the expression
'owner' in S.2(30), making a departure from the
provisions of S.2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The
principle underlying the provisions of S.2(30) is that the
victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the
legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a
state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought
not to be burdened with following a trail of successive
transfers, which are not registered with the registering
authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the
salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the
interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment
of the object of the law. In the present case, the First
respondent was the 'owner' of the vehicle involved in
the accident within the meaning of S.2(30). The liability
to pay compensation stands fastened upon him.
MACA.No.268 OF 2010
Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court
has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments
of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.
13. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to
intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under
S.50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the
vehicle. In Dr. T. V. Jose, this Court observed that there
can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and
delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the
person whose name is reflected in the records of the
registering authority is the owner. The owner within the
meaning of S.2(30) is liable to compensate. The
mandate of the law must be fulfilled."
In the light of the above decision, there is nothing to
interfere with the impugned award. I make it clear that if
there is any claim on the part of the appellant against the 9 th
respondent, he can agitate the same independently.
With these observation, this appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
al/-++
