( 1 ) THESE are three appeals filed against the common order dated 31/3/1987, passed by the Motor Accident claim Tribunal ( Claim Tribunal), whereby, the appellant-Insurance Company, in first appeal No. 587 and 588 of 1990 i. e. original opponent No. 3 and the appellant in First appeal No. 1063/1987, original opponent NO. 2-owner of the vehicle, have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 64,800/- together with interest at 12 % p. a. from the date of petition till payment of the amount and proportionate cost of the petition. Opponent No. 2 have been directed to pay an amount of rs. 14,800 and opponent No. 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest on the respective amounts.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 1063/1987-opponent NO. 2, basically contended, that in view of the Supreme Courts judgment in ( G. Govindan V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others) (AIR 1999 S. C. 1398) and (Rikhi Ram and another v. Smt. Sukhrania and others ) (AIR 2003 S. C. 1446) based on the provisions of sections 94, 95 and 103a of motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), the Apex Court has made it very clear that so far as, the liability of Insurance company is concerned, it does not cease in absence of an intimation of transfer of vehicle to the insurance company. It is specifically observed that the policy if not transferred in the name of transferee of vehicle, that itself can not be a ground to deny the compensation by the insurer to the victim or the legal representative of the victim. A factum of no initimation or intimation is an interse dispute between the transferor or transferee of the vehicle. The victim or such any heirs of the victim, should not be made to move here and/or there for their respective claims. The fact that the vehicle was admittedly insured, and there was a insurance policy on the date of incident, that itself according to me sufficient to consider the case of the victim to grant such compensation. This is a matter of statutory liability, under the Motor Vehicle Act.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the owner, opponent No. 2 contended that there was initimation given and therefore, he was not liable to make such payment. The learned Judge, however, after considering the material on the record, clearly gave finding on the issue against opponent No. 2, holding him to be liable, as he failed to prove the service of such intimation of transfer of ownership.

( 4 ) IN this matter, admittedly, the incident took place on 22nd November, 1980 at about 9. 30 p. m. As per the appellant in appeal No. 1063/1987, the vehicle was sold on 27/4/1983 to one Abdul - respondent No. 4. The possession receipt was also obtained and it was already handed over to respondent No. 4. As per the appellant, the Insurance Company was also informed about the said transfer. Respondent No 4 further transferred the vehicle on 11/5/1982 to one Shri Mohammed Ayaz Ali. However, there is nothing on the record to prove the service of such intimation of the said vehicle.

( 5 ) THE incident took place on 22/11/1980. The insurance Companys liability is concerned, unless it is proved that the vehicle was actually transferred and recorded accordingly after the intimation, they are liable to make the payment, as per the Insurance policy. However, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance company that they have not received any such intimations on their record. Therefore, for the purpose of the case, the vehicle at the relevant time stood in the name of opponent No. 2. Mere sending of intimation itself is not sufficient. What is necessary is to prove the receipt of the intimation by the Insurance Company. In the present case the Insurance Company denies the same, therefore, there is no reason to accept the said contention and or the case of the original owner. The factum of such transaction unless duly intimated to the insurance Company, and recorded accordingly remains in the name of the person in whose name the vehicle was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document