United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K.P.BABY

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thrissur, in O.P. No. 1129/94. The opposite parties are the appellants.

SHORTLY stated, the allegations in the complaint are as follows : The complainant was the registered owner of Hindustan Ambassador Model Car bearing registration No. KL-8-B 9565. He is a taxi driver. The vehicle was insured with opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-. The vehicle was stolen on 2.4.93. The matter was intimated to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathilakam and Crime No. 80/93 was registered. The vehicle was not recovered. The complainant filed a claim before the opposite parties but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had transferred the vehicle on the date of theft. The complainant alleged that there is sale. It is on these allegations the complaint was filed. The opposite party filed a version admit -ting the coverage of insurance. However it was contended that the complainant sold the vehicle on 24.2.93 to one Saifudeen and now he is the owner of the vehicle and it was while so the theft occurred and in the circumstances the claim filed by the complainant is not maintainable since he is no more the owner. The District Forum took the view that though Saifudeen was put in the possession of the vehicle there was no complete sale and it was only an agreement for sale and therefore the repudiation is not legal.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that change in the owner''s name in the registration certificate is not necessary for transfer of ownership of vehicle. LEARNED Counsel also invited our attention to a ruling of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Swaminathan v. Jayalakshmi Amma, 1987 (2) KLT 292, where the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took the view that the registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee is not essential to pass the title of the vehicle to the transferee and that payment of price and delivery of the vehicle make the transaction complete and the title will pass to the purchaser under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent submitted that there was only an agreement for sale and there is no completed sale in the instant case and therefore the decision referred to above has no application to the facts of this case. We find the District Forum has considered elaborately the position with reference to the agreement Exbt. B 4. We have also perused the agreement for sale and through Saifudeen was put into possession of the vehicle there was no completed sale. The vehicle was purchased under hire purchase agreement. It is also clear from the agreement-relevant portions of which have been extracted in the order of the District Forum that only on payment of the balance of consideration and also the amounts due under the hire purchase agreement the sale will be complete. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the District Forum holding that the repudiation is not legal. There is no dispute regarding the correctness of the amount awarded. We dismiss the appeal. However, in the peculiar circumstances we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.