Kerala High Court
National Insurance Company vs Arunjith.C on 21 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1018 OF 2022
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2021 IN O.P(M.V) NO.312 OF
2020 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE,
KALPANA SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALPETTA POST,
WAYANAD-673121. REPRESENTED BY AJITH SASHTRI,
ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL), NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING,
PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI 682035.
BY ADV SRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 ARUNJITH.C, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHERUKUTTY HOUSE,
MANIKUNI SULTANBATHERY POST & TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673592
2 AJEESH C.A., S/O.APPUNNI,
CHOLAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, CHULLIYODE POST,
NENMANI AMSOM, SULTANBATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD - 673592.
3 SMITHA MURALI, W/O.MURALI,
CHOLAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, CHULLIYODE POST,
NENMANI AMSOM, SULTANBATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD - 673592.
BY ADVS.SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
SRI.E.S.FIROS(K/555/2014)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022
-----------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The appeal on hand is preferred against an award passed by
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta (for short
'the Tribunal') on 30.11.2021 in O.P(M.V) No.312/2020. The
appellant is the 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle
involved in the motor accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal
will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1
to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.
3. 3rd respondent has approached this Court challenging
the fixation of liability on them to pay the compensation to the
petitioner for the damages caused to his motorcycle. ₹50,000/-
was awarded as compensation and the 3 rd respondent was
directed to pay it to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of the Original Petition till the
date of realisation and proportionate costs. Challenge was
mainly raised against the fixation of liability on the insurer solely
on the strength of an agreement for sale of the vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended
that the motor accident in question was occurred in the year
2015 but the claim petition was filed only in the year 2020.
According to him, the Tribunal erred in granting compensation for
damages caused to the vehicle in favour the petitioner who was
not the registered owner of the motorcycle at the relevant time
of the motor accident. It was contended furthermore that the
motor accident was occurred on 23.10.2015 but the actual
transfer of the motorcycle was effected only on 19.07.2017 and
therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to seek compensation
for the damages caused to his motorcycle as it's owner at the
relevant time.
5. The Original Petition on hand was tried alongwith
O.P(M.V)No.332/2020, filed by the petitioner seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor
accident. Evidence was adduced in common. Exts.A1 to A14
were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B3,
marked on the side of the respondents.
6. The sale agreement dated 20.10.2014 by which the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-10AQ-4664 was purported
to be transferred by one Mr.Ashique in favour of the petitioner
was marked in evidence as Ext.A12. It is revealed from the
Certificate of Registration marked in evidence as Ext.A13 that the
motorcycle was registered in the name of the petitioner only on
19.07.2017. The petitioner produced a CD and photographs to
establish the damages caused to the motorcycle, marked in
evidence as Ext.A9. The bills for repair dated 16.06.2017 and the
estimate of insurance claim were marked in evidence respectively
as Exts.A11 and 10. Both these documents were issued in the
name of the original registered owner of the motorcycle.
7. It is found from the evidence on record that Ext.A12
was only an agreement for sale dated 20.10.2014 and the name
of the petitioner was incorporated in the Certificate of
Registration only on 19.07.2017, much later to the motor
accident. Therefore, as on date of the motor accident, the
vehicle was only possessed by the petitioner. As per Section
166(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV
Act'), an application for compensation for damages caused to a
motor vehicle in a motor accident can only be made by the
'owner of the property'. Section 2(30) of the MV Act defines the
term "owner", which reads-
"(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a
minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a
motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase
agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of
hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
under that agreement;"
It is indicated from the provision supra that a person who has
possession of the vehicle can be regarded as owner of the vehicle
only when he is established as an owner under a hire-purchase
agreement in the capacity of a hirer, a lessor under a lease
agreement or as a lender under a hypothecation agreement.
8. True that the bills for repair and the estimate of
insurance claim were issued in the name of the owner at the
relevant time the vehicle met with the motor accident.
Therefore, the possession of the motorcycle at the relevant time
was revealed as, with the then owner of the vehicle. It is evident
that the petitioner became the registered owner of the
motorcycle later and in that capacity the Original Petition was
filed. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the 3rd respondent
at the relevant time of the motor accident. 3 rd respondent has no
contention that an Original Petition seeking compensation for the
damages sustained was filed by the owner of the vehicle at the
relevant time of the motor accident. None else has also come
before the Tribunal raising such a claim. The bills for repair of
the vehicle though were issued in the name of the owner at the
relevant time of the motor accident are now produced by the
petitioner.
9. Even Section 166(1)(b) of the MV Act says that a
petition seeking compensation for damages caused to a vehicle
shall be filed by it's owner. The petitioner in the case in question
being the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of
it's filing and the vehicle having been validly insured with the 3 rd
respondent, it cannot seek exoneration from liability to indemnify
the insured with regard to the compensation arrived at. Dispute
was not raised against the quantum of compensation arrived at
by the Tribunal. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent is liable to pay it
with interest fixed at the rate and for the period, and
proportionate costs. The award under challenge is maintained
and MACA is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
NAB
