RADHA Vs. HAMZA K.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2/11/2001, when the 1st appellant's husband Nanu was walking on the side of the National Highway, a motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him and he sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, but he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred the claim petition. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,36,000.00 as compensation. The appeal is filed claiming enhancement.

(2.) Heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

(3.) The 1st respondent contended that he had sold the vehicle to the 2nd respondent on 13/12/2000 and possession had also been handed over on that date. It is submitted that he had no intimation regarding the accident and it was the 2nd respondent who had got the vehicle released from the Police station as owner in possession of the motor cycle. It is hence submitted that since he is not the owner of the vehicle, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent contended that the vehicle was insured with them during the relevant period, but that the 2nd respondent did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The Tribunal found that the person responsible for the accident was the 2nd respondent who was negligent in driving the vehicle. The insurer had filed an application for causing production of the driving license from the 2nd respondent but the 2nd respondent did not produce the driving licence and hence adverse inference was drawn against him. Exhibit X1 is the petition filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, for release of the vehicle. It can be seen that the petition was filed by the 2nd respondent stating that he is the real owner and the vehicle was released to him. The 1st respondent placed reliance on the decision in Mathew Thankachan v. Manoharan reported in [ILR 1998 (1) Kerala 476]. The contention is that when the ownership of the offending vehicle is transferred bona fide, the transferee will be liable to pay compensation even if the registration certificate is not transferred. The Court had held that the endorsement of transfer in the certificate of registration is not a condition precedent for sale of the vehicle. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal passed the award against the 2nd respondent alone.