New Great Insurance Company Of India Ltd. v. Koshalesh Sharma And Others

I.S Israni, J.:— This appeal has been filed by insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, in case No. 31 of 1972. For the purposes of this appeal, it will suffice to state that an accident took place on November 21, 1971. It is stated that while the respondent No. 1 Koshalesh Sharma was standing on the road on his correct side along with some other persons, a bus bearing No. RSL 337, which was coming from Karoli, came and struck him and caused injuries to respondent No. 1 on account of which his leg had to be amputated and he also received severe injuries in the right leg. In the claim petition, the claimant respondent No. 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the loss of his leg, pain and mental agony, but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- only as compensation. The appellant insurance company was made liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and interest thereon.

2. The contention of Mr. G.K Bhartiya, learned counsel for the appellant, is that bus No. RSL 337 was registered in the name of Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal. This vehicle, according to learned counsel, was sold in the year 1962 to one Ramdayal. At the time of accident Ram Singh was driving the vehicle under the instructions from Ramdayal. It is further submitted by learned counsel that since the insurance policy was in the name of Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal, but the owner of the bus was Ramdayal and driver Ram Singh was also driving under his instructions, therefore, there is no privity of contract between Ramdayal and the insurance company. Hence no award could have been given against the appellant company. The Tribunal gave a finding that since Ramdayal was the owner of the vehicle at the time when accident took place, therefore, Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal in whose name the policy of insurance was issued is not liable for payment of any compensation. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant insurance company was liable to pay compensation as stated above. The contention of Mr. Bhartiya is that since insured Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal have not been made liable for payment of compensation, therefore, the appellant insurance company on the basis of privity of contract cannot be held to be liable for payment of any compensation as Ramdayal did not obtain any policy for insuring the vehicle involved in the accident. It is further contended by Mr. Bhartiya that the vehicle involved in accident was transferred from the name of Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal to the name of Ramdayal on February 24, 1972.

3. On this count also Ramdayal became registered owner and the insurance company cannot be held to be liable for payment of any compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The contention of Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents, is that Exh. A-3, the certificate of registration, shows that the vehicle was transferred to the name of Ramdayal on the date mentioned above. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that the accident took place on November 21, 1971, but the vehicle was transferred to the name of Ramdayal on 24th February 1972, therefore, at the time of accident Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal were the registered owners of the vehicle and therefore, are liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. It is further contended by learned counsel that in this situation not only the registered owners Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal but also the owner and the subsequent owner of the vehicle Ramdayal both are liable for payment of compensation. It is also contended by learned counsel that according to Ramdayal himself the vehicle was purchased by him as earlier as in the year 1962 and he himself after accident on superdarinama, declared himself to be the owner and took the possession of the vehicle from the concerned court.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel and also perused the award and other documents on record. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani, 1988 ACJ 206 (Rajasthan), a Division Bench of this court has held that even when the vehicle was transferred prior to the date of accident and the transferee had informed the insurance company about transfer of vehicle but the insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that the transferor had not applied in the prescribed form to the insurance company for transfer of certificate of insurance in favour of the transferee, the provisions of section 103 cannot be interpreted in such a narrow way. It was held that intimation of transfer given by the transferee to the insurance company is enough and it is not necessary that it may be given on the prescribed form. It was, therefore, held that the insurance company can only take such defences as are available to it under section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and no more. In this case the situation is still better as the accident has taken place before the vehicle was transferred to the name of Ramdayal. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions raised by the appellant.

6. It can be very well seen that at the time of accident Ram Sahai Kanahiya Lal were the registered owners and, therefore, they are liable for payment of compensation more so when they are also party to the proceedings.

7. Mr. G.C Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents, does not press his cross-objections, which are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. It is given out that the total amount of the award has been deposited by the appellant in the branch of State Bank of India, in the High Court premises in the F.D.R in the name of the Additional Registrar of Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur. The interest accruing on the F.D.R is being remitted monthly to the respondent No. 1, in his S.B Account No. 11819 in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Karoli branch. It is, therefore, directed that after the maturity of the F.D.R mentioned above, the amount of F.D.R may be remitted in the above-mentioned S.B Account in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Karoli, in the name of respondent No. 1, Koshalesh Sharma.

8. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. Appeal dismissed.