Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 563 (KER)

Sreekumar v. Abdeen

2013-07-08

THOMAS P.JOSEPH

body2013
Judgment : 1. A question of inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner of the offending vehicle and right of the registered owner to recover compensation paid to the injured from the defacto owner in a proceeding initiated by the injured before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") is required to be decided in this appeal. 2. It is not disputed and proved that the first respondent suffered injuries in a motor accident involving a scooter on 31.05.2004. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the 3rd respondent riding that scooter in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle had no insurance coverage. The appellant contended that he had transferred the vehicle to Shine, S/o. Balakrishnan as per Ext.B1 on 25.10.1998. The second respondent purchased the said vehicle from Shine in the year, 2000. The appellant claimed that he is not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. 3. The Tribunal referred to the relevant documents concerning transfer of the vehicle to Shine and the second respondent and observed in paragraph 12 of the award that since the appellant continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident he cannot escape liability. The appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 were made liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sec.175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), inter se dispute between the appellant and the second respondent regarding transfer of the vehicle is to be decided by the Tribunal. If it is found that there was a transfer of the vehicle prior to the accident, may be the registered owner continues to be liable to the 3rd parties but the registered owner is entitled to recover the amount if realised from him from the real owner. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Dr. T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan and others ( (2001)8 SCC 748 ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (2004(1) KLT 781),National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur ( 2004(2) SCC 1 ), P.P. Mohammed V. K. Rajappan and others ((2008)17 SCC 624) and Pushpa @ Leela and others V. Shakuntala and others ( (2011)2 SCC 240 ). 5. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (2004(1) KLT 781),National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur ( 2004(2) SCC 1 ), P.P. Mohammed V. K. Rajappan and others ((2008)17 SCC 624) and Pushpa @ Leela and others V. Shakuntala and others ( (2011)2 SCC 240 ). 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 argued that remedy of the appellant is to move the Civil Court for recovery of the amount if any from the second respondent. 6. Question is whether inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner could be decided by the Tribunal and the registered owner could be given right to recover the amount if any realised from him from the defacto owner ? In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (supra) the Supreme Court observed, "In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide the disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided under Sec.174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants." In Dr. T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan and others (supra) the Supreme Court refused to look into the inter se dispute between the registered owner (transferor) and the defacto owner (transferee) for the reason that the transferee was impleaded in the proceeding only in the Supreme Court. In Pushpa @ Leela andothers V. Shakuntala and others (supra) the policy of insurance was taken in the name of the registered owner even after transfer of the vehicle. Hence it was held that inter se dispute between the respondents in the claim petition was not required to be decided. The above decisions indicate that inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner is to be decided by the Tribunal if properly raised in the Tribunal. 7. In this connection it is relevant to consider Sec.174 of the Act. The above decisions indicate that inter se dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner is to be decided by the Tribunal if properly raised in the Tribunal. 7. In this connection it is relevant to consider Sec.174 of the Act. It is as under:- " Where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land value." The said provision says that if amount is due to 'any person' under the award the Claims Tribunal may on an application made to it "by the person entitled to the amount" issue a certificate stated therein. The words 'any person' occurring in Sec.174 of the Act should include the registered owner who had transferred the vehicle prior to the accident. Sec.175 of the Act ousts jurisdiction of the civil court to decide any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. Reading the above provisions, I am of the view that the Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate on dispute between the registered owner and the defacto owner regarding ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident and arising in a claim petition pending before it. 8. Once it is found that there is a transfer of the vehicle by the registered owner to the defacto owner before the accident, there is no reason why the registered owner should not be given the right to recover the amount (if any realised from him by the claimant) from the defacto owner as provided in Sec.174 of the Act. 9. Transfer of a motor vehicle is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and hence passing of consideration and delivery of possession of the vehicle makes the transfer complete. But so far registration of the vehicle stands in the name of the vendor he continues to be liable to the 3rd parties (see P.P. Mohammed V. K. Rajappan and others and Pushpa @ Leela and others V. Shakuntala and others (supra)). Hence the appellant, notwithstanding transfer of the offending vehicle prior to the accident continues to be liable to the first respondent/claimant. 10. Ext. Hence the appellant, notwithstanding transfer of the offending vehicle prior to the accident continues to be liable to the first respondent/claimant. 10. Ext. B1 is the sale letter dated 25.10.1998 executed between the appellant and Shine S/o. Balakrishnan as per which the appellant claims to have transferred the offending vehicle to the said Shine. Ext.B6 is the copy of FIR and Ext.B3 series (Ext.A6) is copy of final report submitted by the police in the criminal case. Ext.B3 series (Ext.A6) contains statement of the second respondent that the vehicle belonged to him on the date of accident. There is also oral evidence of the appellant as RW1 that he, by Ext.B1 transferred the vehicle to Shine, S/o. Balakrishnan. The second respondent does not dispute that he was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. There is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant had transferred the offending vehicle prior to the date of accident and that on the date of accident, the second respondent was its owner. 11. In that view of the matter the Tribunal erred in not deciding the inter se dispute between the appellant and the second respondent and in not giving right of recovery to the appellant. Resultantly the appeal is allowed as under:- 1) It is directed that in case the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum in O.P. (MV) No. 1386 of 2004 in favour of the first respondent is realised from the appellant, the appellant can recover the said amount with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of payment till realization from the second respondent under Sec.174 of the Act. 2) Parties are directed to suffer their cost in this appeal.