S.N. Variava JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.
1. These Appeals are against a judgment dated 30th January, 1991.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: Car bearing No. KLO 4828, driven by the 1st Respondent (herein), met with an accident on 9th April. 1987. One of the Passengers viz. one Anthony Alexander was seriously injured in that accident. The said Anthony Alexander thereafter succumbed to his injuries on 10th April, 1987. Respondents 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the said Anthony Alexander. They filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) against the Appellant, the 1st Respondent and the 8th Respondent (Insurance Company).
3. Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had sold the car on 7th May, 1986, to one Smt. M.K. Bhavani. It was claimed that Smt. Bhavani had thereafter sold the car, on 12th May. 1986. to Sh. Aboobacker. It was claimed that on 15th August, 1986 Sh. Aboobacker had sold the car to one George Mathew. The said George Mathew had supposedly thereafter sold the car to one Roy Thomas on 18th August. 1986. The Appellant claimed that on the date of the accident the car belonged to Roy Thomas. However it was an admitted position that the transfer of ownership of the car was never intimated to the R.T.O. and that in the records of R.T.O. the name of the Appellant continued to be shown as the owner.
4. An Insurance Policy bearing No. 100505/22/1/0067/86 had been issued by the 8th Respondent. It was valid from 25th November, 1986 to 24th November, 1987. This Policy had been issued in the name of the Appellant. Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had not taken out the insurance Policy.
5. The 1st Respondent claimed, before the MACT, that the real owner was the Appellant. The 1st Respondent claimed that he was employed by the Appellant. The 8th Respondent claimed that the Policy was only an Act Policy (Third Party Policy) and therefore, it did not cover liability towards passengers.
6. Before MACT the Appellant examined himself. He also examined Smt. M.K. Bhavani, her son Sh. Aboobacker and George Mathew to show that the car had been sold by him. The 1st Respondent gave evidence to the effect that the Appellant was still the owner of the car.
7. After considering the evidence MACT gave an Award dated 5th May, 1988. It held that the Appellant was not the owner of the car and was, therefore, not liable. It held that the Insurance Company was also not liable as the Policy had been got issued in the name of the Appellant when he was not the real owner. It held that the driver was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. MACT passed an Award in a sum of Rs. 1,40,700/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum. MACT held that the driver was bound to pay the sum to the claimants.
8. The 1st Respondent and Respondents 1 to 6 filed Appeals before the High Court. The High Cou........