DWARKA PRASAD J —This is an appeal in a motor accident claim case. The respondent Khetpal Singh was the driver in a Government jeep No. R.J.R. 151 which was coming towards Jaipur from Kota on December 4, 1965. While the jeep had proceeded about 8 mites beyond Bundi, truck R.J.Z. 1884, which was driven by Shakti Singh respondent, dashed against the Jeep. As a result of the aforesaid collusion, Khetpal Singh received a fracture of his right forearm, while his sons Bishwendra Pal Singh and Ranghavendra Singh, who were also travelling along with him, sustained injuries. A claim petition was filed by Khet Pal Singh and his sons before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota, complaining that Shakti Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently and as a result thereof the accident took place, causing injuries to Khetpal Singh and his two sons. Asum of Rs. 65,000/- was claimed by Khet Pal Singh for loss caused to him while a sum of Rs. 17,000/- each was claimed on account of injuries sustained by his two sons.

2. The driver Shakti Singh as well as the owner of the vehicle Raghuvir Singh and the Insurance Company, M/s. Motor Owners Insurance, Company, Yadav Building, Belgaon, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the insurer") were sought to be made liable for compensation for the injuries sustained by Khet Pal Singh and his sons. The Tribunal, after a trial, held that Shakti Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently and on account of the rash conduct of the truck driver Shakti Singh the accident was caused and injuries were sustained by Khet Pal Singh and his sons. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to Khet Pal Singh and his two sons, by its order dated December 11, 1976.

3. When the matter came up for hearing in this Court on appeal, Jagat Narayan J., as he then was framed an additional issue to the following effect, by his order dated December 5, 1969 and remanded the case of the Tribunal :-

"Was there a subsisting contract of Insurance between Raghuvir Singh and defendant No. 3 in respect of truck No. R.J Z. 1884 on the date of the accident 7

(On Plaintiff & Raghuveer Singh)".

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties in respect of the additional issue and returned the record together with the evidence and his finding in respect of the new issue. The Tribunal found that the contract of insurance subsisted between Raghuvir Singh and the insurer on the date of the accident. He therefore, held that the Insurance Company was also liable to the same extent as Raghuvir Singh and the liability was also fastened against the insurer in respect of the amount of Rs. 18,000/-. The appeal was later on dismissed in default on 24-3-1972, but on appeal the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this respect was set aside by the Division Bench and the case was remanded for fresh hearing. It is in this manner that the appeal has come up before me for hearing.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before me is that the contract of insurance had come to an end because Hundaldass Daulatram was the insurer and although the insurance policy was effective for the period of one year from 7th December, 1964 to 6th December, 1965. But in March. 1965 the ownership of truck No R.J.Z. 1884 was transferred by Hundaldass Daulatram to Raghuvir Singh and the same was also registered in the name of Raghuvir Singh. The accident took place on December 4, 1965 and as there was no contract of insurance entered into by the Insurance Company and Raghuvir Singh, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for compensation which was payable by Raghuvir Singh.

6. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of Khet Pal Singh and his sons that the Tribunal was right in holding that the contract of insurance was transferred in the name of Raghuvir Singh with the implied consent of the Insurance Company and on this ground it was urged that the Insurance Company was also liab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document