The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy lapses when the vehicle is transferred without informing the insurer, as supported by the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.

1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in MAC Nos. 41 of 1981 and 42 of 1981. The appellant herein was respondent No 13 in MAC No. 42 of 1981 and respondent No. 12 in MAC No. 41 of 1981.

2. The 2nd petitioner in MAC 41 of 1981 is the injured minor child and the 1st petitioner therein is her mother. 2nd petitioner was studying in a tutorial college and was preparing for SSLC Examination. On the date of the incident she was returning to her house in Bus "No. KLR-4980. The petitioner in MAC 42 of 1981 was also a passenger in the bus. According to the claimants the bus was overcrowded and it was being driven at very high speed. As the bus passed a culvert a lorry bearing registration No. KLD 6556 came from the opposite direction and there was collision between the two vehicles. The incident happened at a place called Kokkad. According to the petitioners both the vehicles were driven negligently.

3. As a result of the accident the 2nd petitioner in MAC 41 of 1981 and the petitioner in MAC 42 of 1981 sustained serious injuries. Rs. 13,576.98 was claimed as compensation in MAC 41 of 1981 and Rs. 76,152.00 was claimed in MAC 42 of 1981. In MAC 41 of 1981 the Tribunal granted an award of R.5,698-00 and in MAC 42 of 1981 a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded as compensation.

4. The appellant is said to be the owner of the lorry. Originally he was not a party to the proceedings and was impleaded subsequently. The main contention of the appellant is that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the owner of the bus and the insurance company are liable for damages. Secondly it was contended that even if the driver of the lorry was negligent, the liability under the statute was on the registered owner and there was no transfer of the vehicle in favour of the appellant. It was also contended that the claim as gainst the appellant was time-barred.

5. The Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent in driving their vehicles and that the accident occurred as a result of their negligent driving. Exts. R23 and R24 are the sketch and report prepared some time after the accident. Ext. R.23 sketch showed that there was sufficient width for the road and the accident happened almost in the middle of the road. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal has found that there was negligence on the part of both the drivers. It has come in evidence that the bus was fully crowded with passengers. There were about 30 standing passengers. The accident occurred on the day of Kodungallur Bharani and being festival season naturally the bus would have been driven at high speed. pw. 3 was one of the passengers in the bus. He deposed that the bus came in a high speed and the accident occurred after the bus passed a culvert. pw. 2, the lorry driver, said that seeing the bus coming at a high speed he stopped the lorry about 10 to 15 feet to the east and the bus hit on the right side of the lorry. Rw. 5 is the driver of the bus. According to him the lorry was coming at a high speed and it bit on the right side of the bus. The fact that the accident was on the day of Kodungallur Bharani and that the bus was fully packed with passengers is spoken to by several witnesses. Apart from the interested evidence of rw. 5 there is no evidence to show that the lorry was coming at a high speed. On a reappraisal of the evidence on both sides, we feel that the driver of the bus was more negligent than the lorry driver. Therefore, we fix the liability of the bus driver at 60 per cent and that of the driver of the lorry at 40 per cent.

6. According to the insurer of the lorry, namely, the New India Assurance Company, the lorry originally belonged to the late husband of 8th respondent in MFA No. 415 of 1982 and this respondent executed an agreement in favour of the appellant Swaminathan on 3-1-19