P P MOHAMMED Vs. K RAJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the judgment of the High court of Kerala dated 13.11.1997.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows: on 21.6.1977, an accident took place which resulted in injury to the respondent no. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal wherein the person in whose name the car was registered, i. e. , appellant (herein) was the respondent No. 1, the driver of the vehicle was the respondent no. 2 and the insurance company was the respondent No. 3. An ex parte decree came to be passed in that matter. However, the same was set aside and thereafter the appellant and the driver filed written statements. The appellant claimed in his written statement that he had already sold off the vehicle to the respondent No. 4 herein. The driver in his written statement stated that the vehicle was owned by the respondent no. 5 (herein) and he was in the employment of the respondent No. 5. The claimant therefore made an application to join respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to his petition. By an order dated 12.11.1986 they were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the original petition. The trial then proceeded. Having considered the evidence led by the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to negligence of driver and awarded compensation. It, however, held that the appellant was not liable as he had already transferred the vehicle to respondent no. 4 who, in turn, transferred it to respondent No. 5. The Tribunal, therefore, fastened the liability on the driver and respondent No. 5 but also held respondent no. 4 liable to pay compensation. The tribunal absolved the insurance company on the ground that the sale of the vehicle was not intimated to it and that, therefore, they were not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) The appeals were filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 before the High court. The High Court has by the impugned judgment held that the appellant alone was liable to pay the compensation because the name of the appellant continued in the records of R. T. O. The High Court held that appellant continued to be the owner of the vehicle. The High Court has also held that as the appellant was liable, he was entitled to be indemnified by the insurance company in terms of the insurance policy.