K. Abdusamad vs Abdu, Balakrishnan, Firozkhan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M.N. Krishnan, J.—This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(MV)1125/06.

The claimant, a passenger in an auto rickshaw, sustained injuries in a road accident on 1-6-01. The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not having

a valid permit. The Tribunal also held that the claimant can be compensated by the insurance company and recovery can be had from R1, R2 and

R4 by R3 in the absence of a valid permit. Now it is challenging that decision the 4th respondent has come up in appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend before me the vehicle had been sold by the appellant long prior to the accident and

therefore he cannot be saddled with the liability. The Tribunal also found that R1 was the owner of the vehicle. But nevertheless the Tribunal felt

that being a registered owner R4 can be made liable, most probably it is in the light of the decision of this Court reported in Ashraf Vs. Fathima, .

In that decision this Court held that the privity of contract is between the registered owner and the insurer and therefore insurer can realise the

amount only from him. Now the learned young counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice a copy of the registration particulars. Copy of

the registration particulars indicates that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of one Balakrishnan son of Kathan i.e. the first respondent

with effect from 2.5.01. The accident had taken place only on 6.6.01.Therefore if the transfer is effected with effect from 2.5.01 R4 cannot be

made liable. But unfortunately this document was not produced before the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal held it otherwise. I feel an

opportunity can be given so that the authenticated copy can be produced and the matter be dealt with by the Tribunal. Therefore the award under

challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the interse liability between R1 and R4 are concerned. The parties are permitted to produce both

documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The

appellant shall take out notice to the first respondent in the claim petition besides the insurance company for the reason they are necessary for a

proper disposal of the case. The original of the document produced be returned to the appellants for production before the trial court. The amount

in deposit also shall not be disbursed till a final decision is taken in the matter. Till a final decision is taken in the matter if any recovery proceedings

are initiated that shall be kept in abeyance. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2010.