I.S. ISRANI, J.—This Special Appear under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated September 3, 1986 whereby the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 18 2.1982 in claim case No. 291/77 was modified.

2. Brief facts giving-rise to the present appeal are that a claim petition for compensation on account of death of Moti Lal husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 due to accident that occurred on 10.5.1977 at Jaipur while the deceased was going on his Suvega auto-cycle, was filed. It is alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Fiat Car, which was at the relevant time driven by respondent No. 5.

3. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, Smt. Mooli Devi w/o Kanhaiya Lal respondent No. 3 mother of deceased applied that she may also be impleaded as an applicant. This prayer was granted and she was added as an applicant. Learned Tribunal gave an award in a sum of Rs. 73,000/-by way of compensation with 12% interest p. a., in case the amount was not paid within 2 months. Three appeals against the said award were filed in this court, which were heard by the learned Single Judge and by the impugned order, the amount was enhanced to Rs. 1,23,000/- with 12% interest from the date of application and cost of the appeal with entire liability for payment on the appellant Insurance Company.

4. The only question pressed by the learned counsel Shri B. P. Agrawal appearing for the appellant is regarding a substantial question of law involved in this appeal as to whether it is not open to the Insurance Company to defend the action against it arising out of a motor accident covered by the insurance policy of a motor vehicle in the name of insured owner who has transferred the vehicle prior to the date of accident on the ground that its contractual liability to indemnify the tranferee of the vehicle as he was left with no insurable interest from the date of the transfer effected in his favour in the insurance policy? It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case the motor vehicle involved in the accident, Fiat Car No. RSM 9701 was insured with the appellant insurance company by the owner thereof, namely, respondent No. 6 Dwarka Prasad and that the period of insurance commenced from 16.6.76 and was to expire on 15.6.77. It was found as a fact that the said vehicle was sold by respondent No. 6 Dwarka Prasad to respondent No. 4 Smt. Santosh Rani on 18.6.76 just 2 days after the commencement of the policy and was even transferred in the record of Regional Transport Authority on 24.6.76. The accident took place on 10.5.77. It is contended by the learned counsel that compliance of the provisions of Sec. 103-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter called as "the Act") was not made by the transferer and the certificate of insurance was neither transferred to the name of transferee nor any fresh policy of insurance was taken out. This was challenged in the appeal before the learned Single Judge by the appellant company, but according to the learned counsel this matter was not considered because the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the liability of the Insurance Company would subsist irrespective of the transfer since it was admitted that neither the policy was cancelled nor the premium for the period after the alleged transfer was refunded, more so because the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the above defence was not open to the Insurance Company appellant under the provisions of Sec. 96(2) of the Act. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that in the circumstances of the case the insurance policy in question stood lapsed before the date of accident on account of sale of the vehicle by the original owner respondent No, 6 to respondent No. 4 and as such the appellant company was not liable for any compensation and that inspite of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document