[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Shaji vs C.D.Babu on 30 April, 2026
CRP No. 3142 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
17.04.2026 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No. 3142 of 2022
and CMP.No.16851 of 2022
S.Shaji
Madthanilkarottu House, Chirakkadavu Post,
Ponnukunnam, Kanjirappally, Kottayam,
Kerala-686 506.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. C.D.Babu
S/o. C.C. Devassy, Chittilappilly House, Elthuruth
Post, Laloor, Thrissur - 680 611.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.104-a, Peramanur Main Road, Permanur
Salem.
3. S. Stanley
No.46, Gopalamenon St, Choolai, Chennai - 112.
(3rd Respondent impleaded vide court order
dated.16/12/2025 made in CMP No.17743 of
2024 in CRP No.3142 of 2022).
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the award dated 04.07.2019 passed in
MCOP.No.80/16, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special
Sub-Court No.2), Salem.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Vijay
for Mr.R.Thanjan
For Respondent(s): RR1 & 3 – Not ready in notice
Ms.R.Sree Vidhya for R2
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3142 of 2022
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the award dated
04.07.2019 passed in MCOP.No.80/16, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2), Salem.
2. Heard Mr.D.Vijay, learned counsel for Mr.R.Thanjan, learned counsel
the petitioner and Ms.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit
that an ex parte award had been passed against him, in the claim petition filed
by the first respondent was ordered, with a direction to the second respondent
to pay and recover the amount. He would submit, that no summons were served
upon him with regard to the claim petition filed by the first respondent.
However, he had been held ex parte and award had been passed, holding that
the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the vehicle owned by
him, and in that process the liability was fixed upon him, with a direction to the
second respondent to make good the award amount and recover it from the
petitioner. He would further submit the award came to his knowledge, only
when he received the notices under the Revenue Recovery Act, initiated by the
second respondent.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. He would further submit that the vehicle was sold by him as early as in
the year 2011, and in that context, he would rely upon the registration
certificate, pointing out the NOC issued as early as in the year 2011 to the
Transport Authority at Chennai, indicating that the vehicle had been sold to the
third respondent. Hence he would submit that the claim petition as against the
petitioner itself is not maintainable. He would submit that when the petitioner
do not own the vehicle which had caused the accident, and he not being served
with summons, the award cannot be implemented against him. Hence he seeks
indulgence of this court.
5. Countering his argument the Learned Counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that on the summons being served and the same being
noticed by the Claims Tribunal the petitioner was set ex parte and an ex parte
award came to be passed. She would heavily contest the claim based upon the
registration certificate produced before this court. She would contend that the
same also as of today stands in the name of the petitioner, and he had not
produced the cancellation of the registration certificate pursuant to his sale to
the third respondent. That apart, she would submit that the insurance of the
vehicle was also renewed only in the name of the petitioner and not in the third
respondent's name as contested by him. She would further submit that the sale
of vehicle was never intimated to the insurance company by the petitioner, and
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore it can only be the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle and is
attempting to mislead this court by claiming that he had sold the vehicle. Hence
prays dismissal of the revision.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The primordial contention of the petitioner is that on the date of the
accident, he was not the owner of the vehicle, as he had sold the vehicle as early
as in the year 2011, which is evidenced by the NOC endorsement in the
registration certificate. If such an NOC was issued in the year 2011, no
explanation has been placed by the petitioner as to why the registration
certificate still stood in his name, and as to why the insurance of the vehicle was
also renewed only in his name, showing him to be the owner.
8. When a vehicle is sold, it enjoins a duty upon the owner of the vehicle
to produce necessary forms before the registering authority for the transfer and
cancellation of the registration certificate standing in the name of the owner,
and also to intimate the insurance company that he had sold the vehicle to a
third party. The petitioner had neither produced the transfer forms nor the no
objection certificate, but is attempting to rely upon an endorsement which is not
supported by any material documents. In such an event, this Court does not find
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any merits in the Revision.
9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently the
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. No order as to costs.
30.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PBN
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub-Court No.2), Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
PBN
30.04.2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
