The registered owner of a vehicle is liable for compensation in case of an accident, even if the vehicle has been sold to another person, unless the registration has been transferred in the name of the new owner.

1. - These three appeals arise out of a common order dated 31.12.1990 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts as mentioned in the memo of appeal are that on 17.11.1985 at about 5 p.m., Dr. Gop Ramchandani (claimant) was going to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, for his duty, on the scooter. A car bearing registration No. RST 364 owned by Manju, which was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur and which was being driven rashly and negligently by Onkar Singh s/o Dool Singh, hit the scooter of the claimant. He was dragged for about 25 feets which resulted in serious injuries on different parts of his body, with the result that the left leg of the claimant had to be amputated. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming a sum of Rs. 12,80,000/- as compensation. Since, according to Manju, she had transferred the vehicle to Yogendra Singh, he was also impleaded as a party. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1 an style='font-family:Ankit'

2 an style='font-family:Ankit'

3 an style='font-family:Ankit'

4 an style='font-family:Ankit'

5 an style='font-family:Ankit'

6 an style='font-family:Ankit'

7 an style='font-family:Ankit'

3. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant but awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation, holding the non-petitioners as jointly and severally responsible. The award was passed on 31.12.1990. It is against this decision that the Insurance Company has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 129 of 1991, praying that the liability of the Insurance Company is to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in case of persons other than passengers and, therefore, it should not be held liable to pay the whole amount of compensation. It has further been averred that since the driver was not having a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable and since on the date of accident the vehicle had been sold by Manju Mathur to Yogendra Singh, the Insurance Company could not be held liable.

4. Manju has preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 262 of 1991 wherein she has asserted that since she had sold the vehicle to Yogendra Singh, she could not be held responsible and should not be asked to pay compensation on account of the accident, whereas Dr. Gop Ramchandani has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 267 of 1991, praying that the Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding a very paltry sum of compensation and he has prayed that he should be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,80,000/-.

5. Mr. S.P. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has drawn my attention to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (S.C.), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a comprehensive policy means comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of damage suffered by the vehicle but it does not mean that the limit of liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. It has further been held that in case the Insurance Company wishes to take defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. In the present case, it had been submitted that the insurance policy, Exh. D-6, had been filed before the Tribunal which shows that no additional premium was paid and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of statutory limit of Rs. 50,000/-.

6. The aforesaid case of Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (S.C.) : I (1988) ACC 327, has been relied in Shakuntla v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1989 ACJ 1063 (Rajasthan), wherein this Court has held that one of the defences available to the In