Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal dismissed

M.K. Raveendran v. Manikantan Nair and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.90 OF 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2020-01-16
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed. The High Court upholds the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant, as the registered owner, cannot be exonerated from liability and that the original owner remains liable along with the driver. The Tribunal’s award stands and the claimant’s compensation is affirmed.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M.K. Raveendran

Respondents

  • Manikantan Nair
  • K. Chandran
  • The Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
  • Jayakumar
  • The Senior Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sunil Nair Palakkat (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • VPK Panicker (Advocate) for Respondent 1
  • • K.C. Santhoshkumar (Advocate) for Respondents 5

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment concerns MACA No. 90 of 2012 arising from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 03.11.2001, the claimant sustained injuries when a scooter (KL-01/G-2899) ridden as a pillion collided with a car (KL-H/8647). The car’s owner, the appellant, and the driver were held jointly and severally liable for a total compensation of Rs. 51,395 with interest at 7.5% from 15.03.2002. The appellant challenges the liability, arguing that he sold the car to the second respondent prior to the accident and that the transfer was not registered; thus the 2nd respondent should bear liability alone. Annexure A1 shows the 2nd respondent as de facto owner in possession, but the Registering Authority still lists the appellant as owner. The court frames the core issue: can the registered owner be exonerated from liability when, despite an alleged sale, the vehicle remained registered in his name? The judgment relies on Supreme Court authority—Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar—which defines owner as the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered (with exceptions for hire-purchase or hypothecation). It also notes that the salutary object of the MV Act is to secure compensation for victims without burdening claimants with unregistered transfers. Citing Naveen Kumar, the Kerala High Court holds that the appellant cannot be absolved of liability. The appeal is dismissed, sustaining the Tribunal’s order. The decision clarifies that mere non-registration of a sale cannot defeat the statutory liability of the registered owner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 50(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • The registered owner under Clause (30) of Section 2 is liable under MV Act.
  • The object and salutary purpose of the MV Act is to secure compensation without burdening claimants with unsettled title transfers.
  • In hire-purchase/lease/hypothecation, possession under the relevant agreement can denote ownership for MV Act purposes.
  • The victim’s right to compensation should not be defeated by unregistered transfers; the law favours prompt relief to the claimant.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that he sold the car before the accident to the 2nd respondent, under a sale agreement, with possession transferred but without registration in the transferee’s name. He contends that continued registration in his name kept him as not the owner for MV Act purposes and thus not liable to pay compensation along with the driver. He relies on Annexure A1 and on the view that an unregistered transfer should extinguish liability to the extent of the transferee's responsibility.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that liability under Section 166 of the MV Act attaches to the registered owner; the transfer not being registered means the appellant remains the owner in law, despite a private sale. They emphasize that the Act’s object is to ensure victims receive compensation without being impeded by unsettled transfers; the vehicle’s insurance was not in force at the time, complicating claims against the insurer. They support reliance on the settled principle that the owner is the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered, and that the sale’s unregistered status cannot exonerate the owner from liability.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others[(2018) 3 SCC 1]PositiveThe Court cited Naveen Kumar to affirm that the registered owner is the liable party under MV Act, reinforcing that ownership is determined by registration; this supports holding the appellant liable.
TV. Jose V. Chacko P.M.[(2001) 8 SCC 748]OverruledThe judgement notes that the earlier view allowing non-registered transfers to affect ownership was repelled by subsequent law; Naveen Kumar clarifies that registration governs ownership for MV Act purposes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.K. Raveendran v. Manikantan Nair and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV).No. 420/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TRIVANDRUM** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **M.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.M.SANKER, SREEJAYA, NEAR SHARJAN U.P.SCHOOL,KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, T.C. - 19/418,THAZHATHUKUNNIL VEEDU, POOJAPPURA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. 2 K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, BHARATI M.D.S KARAMANA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, TC - 50/1022, KOOTTUMVABHUVEEDU, THALIYAL, KARAMANA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,KOTTARATHIL BUILDING, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the 1[st] respondent in O.P(MV)No.420 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, a claim petition filed by the 1[st] respondent herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 03.11.2001, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration No.KL-01/G-2899. At the place of accident, the scooter was hit by a car bearing registration No.KL-H/8647. In the accident, he sustained injuries. The appellant is the registered owner of the said car, which was not having a valid insurance coverage. The said vehicle was driven by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. Since the car was not covered by a valid insurance policy, the appellant owner and the 2[nd] respondent driver were -3- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the 1[st] respondent claimant. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.51,395/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 15.03.2002, the date of petition, till realisation and the appellant and the 2[nd] respondent were directed to satisfy the award. 3. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent the appellant is saddled with liability to pay the amount of compensation along with the 2[nd] respondent driver, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal by contending that prior to the accident, the appellant had sold the vehicle to the 2[nd] respondent and in such circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent alone is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the 1[st] respondent claimant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent/insurer. 5. The issue that requires to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the appellant, who is admittedly the -4- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 registered owner of the car involved in the accident, can be exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the 1[st] respondent claimant along with the 2[nd] respondent driver. 6. The contention raised in this appeal is that before the date of accident, the appellant sold the car to the 2[nd] respondent on the strength of an agreement and as such, the appellant has to be absolved from the liability to pay the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that as per Annexure A1 final report in Crime No.1990 of 2001 of City Traffic Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2[nd] respondent was the de-facto owner of the car, as on the date of accident, who was in possession of that vehicle under a sale agreement, who obtained interim custody of the said vehicle from the Magistrate Court. Since the 2[nd] respondent failed to effect transfer of ownership, the name of the appellant continued to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the -5- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 owner of the vehicle. 7. In **Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others [(2018) 3 SCC 1]** , the Apex Court held that “in view of the definition of the expression “owner” in clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the said Act, would be treated as the “owner”. The use of the expression “means” in Clause (30) of Section 2 is a clear indication of the position that it is the registered owner whom Parliament has regarded as the owner of the vehicle. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. The latter part of the definition in Clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of an exception which applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or of an agreement of lease or hypothecation. Otherwise the definition -6- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 stipulates that for the purposes of the said Act, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is treated as the owner. In view of the above, where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of his liability as owner under the Motor Vehicles Act. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression “owner” in Clause (30) of Section 2 of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, making a departure from the definition of “owner” contained in Clause (19) of Section 2 of the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trial of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose -7- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. Thus, for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Clause (30) of Section 2 of the said Act is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled. 8. In **Naveen Kumar,** the contention of the petitioner was that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. Reliance was placed on the decision in **T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. [(2001) 8 SCC 748]** , wherein the Apex Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Clause (30) of Section 2 is liable to -8- MACA. No. 90 of 2012 compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfiled. 9. In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the liability to compensate, since he is the owner of the car involved in the accident, within the meaning of Clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 20.01.2002 IN C.C. No.263/2006 OF THE JFCMI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**