Law Web: Kerala HC: [S.50 MV Act] Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Liable To Compensate For Accident, Can Recover Amount From Transferee

Section 50 of the Act deals with the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is an admitted fact that the ownership was not transferred and in the registration certificate, the appellant's name is shown as the owner of the vehicle. The transfer of ownership did not come into effect, though, it is alleged that the vehicle was transferred to the additional fifth respondent and thereafter to a third person. {Para 11}

12. The Parliament has consciously introduced the definition

of the expression ‘owner’ under Section 2(30), making a departure

from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The

principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) 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.

In Naveen Kumar (supra), it was 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 and he is liable to compensate. However, the tribunal has found that since there was

no valid driving licence for the rider of the motor cycle, the tribunal

has fastened the liability on the registered owner and the rider of

the motorcycle. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

14. The tribunal has rightly found that the insurer should

pay the amount and then recover the said amount from the

registered owner and driver. I do not find any reason to interfere

with the same. But, I make it clear that in case the amount

awarded by the tribunal is realised from the appellant/owner, the

appellant can recover the said amount with interest awarded by

the tribunal from the date of payment till realisation from the

additional fifth respondent, through due process of law. The

appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA NO. 2872 OF 2014

ABDUL KHADER Vs ARUMUGAN

PRESENT

MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

Decided on 10.07.2025

Citation: 2025:KER:50546

This appeal is filed by the first respondent/ registered

owner of the offending vehicle, in O.P(MV) No.561/2008 on the

files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The

respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants, who are the legal

representative of deceased Sujith and respondents 6 to 9 are

respondents 2 to 5 in the above OP(MV).

2. According to the claimants, on 07.09.2006, while the

victim Sujith was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AK 1426

through Tippu Sultan Road, when he reached at Bhajanamadam

bus stop, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AJ 4127 ridden

by the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, coming

from opposite direction hit the motorcycle of the victim and

thereby he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the

injuries on the same day. The legal heirs approached the tribunal

claiming compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties

are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the tribunal.

3. Before the tribunal, the first, third and additional fifth

respondents filed written statements separately denying the

allegation that the second respondent rode the motorcycle in rash

and negligent manner with excessive speed. The third respondent

insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy. Before the

tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on

the side of the claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the

respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and

materials on record, found that the first respondent is the owner of

the offending motorcycle, since the registration certificate was in

the name of the first respondent and there was no change of

ownership. It was also held that the third respondent was liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners and on such payment, the

third respondent was allowed to recover the amount from

respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver. The tribunal awarded a

total compensation of 3,70,810/- with interest @ 7.5% per ₹

annum. Aggrieved by the grant of right of recovery to the insurer

to recover the amount from the owner, the first respondent has

come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

Though notice was served on the additional fifth respondent, he

chose not to appear before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant herein/first respondent

in O.P(MV) submitted that he was the previous owner of the

offending vehicle, motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-8/AJ 4127 ridden

by the second respondent- Shakeer. It is also submitted that the

vehicle was transferred to additional fifth respondent-Ansari by the

first respondent and he had produced before the tribunal an

indemnity bond, jointly executed by the additional fifth respondent

along with rider Shakeer in favour of the appellant undertaking to

indemnify the liability of compensation which may be awarded in

O.P(MV) No.561/2008. It is his case that the tribunal did not

consider the indemnity bond produced and passed an award

directing the appellant to compensate the claimants for the

injuries sustained, for violation of policy conditions that the second

respondent rider was not having a valid driving licence. The

learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

additional fifth respondent filed a written statement before the

tribunal admitting that the appellant, who was the first

respondent, had transferred the vehicle to his name and hence, it

was the liability of the additional fifth respondent to compensate

the claimant and not the appellant herein. The learned counsel

also relied on the decisions reported in Said Mohammed v. Rema

[1995 (2) KLT 343], Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others [(1997) 7 SCC

481] and Sreekumar v. Abdeen and others [2013 (3) KHC 329]

and argued that though first respondent is the registered owner of

the vehicle, since the additional fifth respondent has filed written

statement before the tribunal admitting that the vehicle was

transferred in his name, the first respondent ought to have been

exonerated from the liability.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer,

on the other hand, submitted that though it is contended by the

appellant that the vehicle was transferred to additional fifth

respondent, in the written statement, the additional fifth

respondent has stated that the vehicle was again transferred to

one Shafeer, who was the brother of the second respondent.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer further

submitted that the registration certificate was still in the name of

the appellant/the first respondent and he relied on the decision of

the Apex Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others

[2018 KHC 6083] wherein it was held that the person whose name

reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner

and he is liable to compensate. The learned Standing Counsel for

the insurance company submitted that the owner is held liable

since there is no driving licence for the rider of the vehicle.

8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both

sides.

9. The accident occurred on 07.09.2006. The vehicle had a

valid insurance policy. The tribunal directed the insurance

company to pay the amount to the claimant and then recover the

said amount from respondents 1 and 2. The second respondent

rider has not challenged the order passed by the tribunal. Only

the first respondent/owner has challenged the order. It is the case

of the appellant/first respondent that even prior to the accident,

the vehicle was transferred to the additional fifth respondent. It is

true that the additional fifth respondent has filed a written

statement admitting that the vehicle was transferred to him by the

appellant herein and it was further contended that before the

accident, the vehicle was sold to another person.

10. The expression ‘owner’ is defined in Section 2(30) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as follows:-

“2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a

motor vehicle stands registered and where such

person is a minor, the guardian of such minor

and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the

subject of a hire purchase agreement, or an

agreement of lease or an agreement of

hypothecation, the person in possession of the

vehicle under that agreement.”

So the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is

the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act.

11. Section 50 of the Act deals with the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is an admitted fact that the ownership was not transferred and in the registration certificate, the appellant's name is shown as the owner of the vehicle. The transfer of ownership did not come into effect, though, it is alleged that the vehicle was transferred to the additional fifth respondent and thereafter to a third person.