Back
1990 Supreme(HP) 112
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
DEVINDER GUPTA
KANTA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
S.DAYAL SINGH - Respondent
F AC No. 288 of 1983, Cross Objection No. 123/84
Decided On : 10/26/1990
For the appellant(s)/petitioner (s):Sh. R. K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s):Sh. K. D. Sood, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 3.
The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is complete when the transferee takes possession of the vehicle, even if the transfer has not been registered with the authorities. A contract of insurance is between the insurer and the insured, and the subject matter of the contract is the vehicle specified in the policy. Once the insured parts with the vehicle, the policy relating to it lapses.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - THIRD PARTY LIABILITY - LAPSE OF POLICY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving a truck and a cyclist, resulting in the death of the cyclist. The deceased's parents filed a claim petition against the truck owner, driver, and the insurance company seeking compensation. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that it was not liable as the vehicle had been transferred to a new owner prior to the accident and the transfer had not been registered with the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award made by the Accident Claims Tribunal. The court found that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle had been completed, even though the transfer had not been registered with the authorities. The court also held that the policy of insurance lapsed upon the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to satisfy the award made by the Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Whether the transfer of ownership of the vehicle had been completed. 3. Whether the policy of insurance lapsed upon the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award made by the Accident Claims Tribunal because the transfer of ownership of the vehicle had been completed, even though the transfer had not been registered with the authorities. The court also held that the policy of insurance lapsed upon the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. 2. The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which state that the transfer of ownership of a vehicle is complete when the transferee takes possession of the vehicle, even if the transfer has not been registered with the authorities. The court also relied on the principle of law that a contract of insurance is between the insurer and the insured, and that the subject matter of the contract is the vehicle specified in the policy. The court held that once the insured parts with the vehicle, the policy relating to it lapses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the award made by the Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that the claimants-appellants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,000 against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, to be shared by the claimants-appellants in the ratio of 2:1. The claimants were also entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Devinder Gupta, J.—Claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal against the award made on October 25, 1983 by Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, making an award of rupees 10,000 in their favour against respondents 3 and 4 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of realization. Respondent No. 3, (Insurance Company) has preferred cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. challenging the award in so far as it has held the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award.
2. On July 30, 1979. Shashi Kumar son of claimant-appellants was on his way from Khikli Rajol to his village in Tremlu in Tehsil Kangra on his by-cycle (on Pathankot Mandi Road), when Truck No. PUG 9487, hereinafter referred to as the Vehicle struck him at Rajol and as a result of this impact, Shashi Kumar received serious injuries on vital parts of his body due to which he succumbed to his injuries within 22 hours in Civil Hospital, Dharamshala. The father and mother of the deceased filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation attributing rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its Driver Budhi Singh, respondent No. 2, alleging that the Driver took his vehicle towards wrong side and due to his rash and negligent act, the accident took place. Initially, the claim petition was preferred only against respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and Driver of the vehicle, respectively, but subsequently, amendment of the petition was sought and respondents 3 and 4 were also impleaded as parties. Respondent No. 4, being the owner of the vehicle prior to its sale by it in favour of respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 3, being Insurance Company with whom the vehicle had been got insured by respondent No. 4. It was alleged that the deceased was an intelligent and promising young man, who had been selected by the Industrial Technical Institute, Chamba, for technical training after the deceased .had completed his matriculation examination. The deceased was to get stipend during the period of his training and thereafter was to start earning to enable him to support his parents (claimants). All hopes of the claimants were shattered by the un-timely death of deceased. It was further alleged that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, the other children being daughters.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents, Respondents 3 and 4 took up similar stand. It was stated that the vehicle was owned by respondent No. 4, till May 18, 1979. Vehicle was sold for valid and lawful consideration on May 19, 1979 in favour of respondent No. 1, and due intimation was sent to the Registering Authority in this behalf. Vehicle had been got insured by respondent No. 4, with respondent No. 3, for the period from September 7, 1978 to September 6, 1979. As the vehicle stood in the name of respondent No. l, on the date of accident, therefore, the liability, if any, to compensate the claimants was that of respondents 1 and 2 and not of respondents 3 and 4 as neither respondent No. 1, had insurable interest, nor respondent No. 3, was liable under the terms of the policy to compensate the third party after the vehicle had been transferred.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 also contested the claim petition denying rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 2.
5. During the course of hearing before the learned Claims Tribunal, no evidence was adduced by the respondents in so far as actual incident is concerned. The Tribunal drew adverse inference as even Budhi Singh Driver had failed to step in the witness-box and accordingly a finding was returned that the accident took place due to the acts of negligence on the part of Budhi Singh Driver. It was held that the truck had not only left its own side but had gone to the extreme right side and stopped near the ditch by dragging the deceased for a considerable distance. The Tribunal made an award in the sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the clai
