The insurance company remains liable for compensation regardless of vehicle ownership transfer, as long as the vehicle was insured and no policy violations occurred.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is being preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated 06.10.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 56/2016, Mohan Kanhai Vs. James Gada & Ors. passed by the Learned 8^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.), presided over by Shri Deepak K. Gupta, whereby the Tribunal has passed the above-stated final award.

3. A concise statement of the case facts is on 14.12.2011, at approximately 5:30 PM, near a meet tire shop situated by the canal bank in Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, The driver/Respondent No.2 of the dumper bearing registration number CG-12/C-1279 (herein referred as ‘Offending Vehicle’), was engaged in loading old tires onto the dumper using a hydraulic jack. The Respondent No.1, who was acting as a helper, was observing from below while holding onto the helper-side door of the dumper, instructing the driver not to lift the dumper’s hydraulic jack too high. However, the driver, Respondent No.2, of the said vehicle, due to sudden negligence and reckless act, lifted the hydraulic jack abruptly and to an excessive height. As a result, the dumper’s hydraulic jack came into contact with an overhead electric wire, causing an electric current to flow through the dumper and the hydraulic jack. Consequently, the Respondent No.1 the helper suffered severe electric burns. Following the accident, he was admitted to Sector- 9 BSP Hospital, where he remained hospitalized until the 27th of December, 2011. Subsequently, he was transferred and admitted to Dhanwantari Hospital from 31.12.2011 to 19.01.2012. Hence this appeal.

4. This is an admitted fact that the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, Dumper No. CG-12/C-1279, was Respondent No.2 (James Gada) and the registered owner of the vehicle was Respondent No.4 (Ramesh Kumar Sirka) and the present owner is Respondent No.3 (Director and Office, Sanjay Agrawal) and the said vehicle was insured with the present appellant-insurance company on the date of the incident.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company respectfully submits that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) of the accident was lodged with an inordinate delay of approximately 78 days. Such delay casts serious doubts on the bona fides of the report, suggesting that the case was filed merely to secure compensation against the offending vehicle. The accident itself occurred due to the negligent act of Respondent No. 2/Driver, and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant-insurance company.

6. It is further submitted that the claim petition filed under Section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1973’) is not maintainable in law. The appellant also contends that the driver of the offending vehicle was operating the vehicle in a negligent manner; the vehicle lacked a valid permit at the time of the incident; and the insurance policy was in the name of Respondent No. 4 (the registered owner of the offending vehicle), who had subsequently transferred the vehicle to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the driver and the current owner of the offending vehicle, respectively).

7. Moreover, it is submitted that the driver was holding a licence for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV), whereas the offending vehicle falls under the category of Heavy Motor Vehicles (HMV), which is impermissible and illegal. The driver failed to exercise due care while operating the vehicle. In light of the foregoing, the liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant-insurance company.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that since the vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No. 4