A motor insurance policy is a contract of personal indemnity and cannot be assigned. When a motor vehicle insured against damage is transferred to another person, the owner himself retaining no interest in the car, the policy automatically lapses and there is nothing for the insurer to avoid it.

(1) This appeal as well as the cross-objections to the appeal arise out of a decree passed by the learned District Judge Jammu on 22-2-65 whereby he has passed a decree for Rs. 6685.37 and costs in favour of the respondent No. 1 against defendants 1 and 2. The decree was exparte against defendant 1. The third defendant was absolved from any liability under the terms of this decree.

The facts giving rise to the present litigation are that the plaintiff, who is an Excise & Taxation Officer Jammu, was going on his scooter alongwith Balbir Singh PW from Shankar Talkies to the city on 20-2-61 at 10-30 PM When he reached the crossing near the Jewel Talkies, defendant 1 Dwarika Nath was driving a truck No. 8446 J & K on the BC Road on the wrong side at a very high speed rashly and negligently ; and, while negotiating the bend at the crossing, his scooter was dashed by the truck. Both the plaintiff Sudesh Kumar and his companion were thrown off the scooter and sustained injuries. The plaintiff suffered from the fracture of his left thigh femur which permanently disabled him. He also received other injuries and his scooter was badly damaged. He was sent to the Civil Hospital at Jammu for treatment. He was kept an indoor patient there and his leg was set right ; but after he was discharged from the hospital it was discovered that the fracture had been wrongly set. He had afterwards to go for medical treatment to Amritsar. He was practically confined to bed for more than five months. According to the plaintiff, defendant 2 Roshan Lal Bhalla was the owner of the truck, defendant 1 its driver and defendant 3 the insurance company with which the truck was insured. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 10,000 on the following grounds : -

1) Rs. 1000 on account of damage caused to the scooter.

2) Rs. 1500 on account of expenses incurred on the medical treatment of the plaintiff.

3) Rs. 7500 on account of injuries actually received shortening the expectancy of his life and person.

(3) The defendant 1 the driver remained exparte and he has continued so even in this appeal. The other two defendants 2 and 3 put in separate written statements, but the defences taken by them were more or less common. The defendant No. 2 denied the ownership of the truck and both defendants denied that the defendant 3 was at all liable for any amount to the plaintiff. About the accident it was stated that defendant 1 was not at all responsible for causing the accident; he never drove the truck rashly or negligently. The plaintiff was alleged to be guilty of negligence and it was further averred that the accident was the result of the negligence of the plaintiff. Defendant 3 took the further plea that the truck was insured with Shri Tek Chand Nanda. The quantum of damages claimed was also challenged.

(4) The following issues were framed by the court:

1. Whether the defendant No. 1 was driving the truck No 8446 J & K rashly and negligently and was on the wrong side at the time of the accident ? OPP

2. Whether the scooter of the plaintiff was badly damaged and the repairs have cost Rs. 1000, OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has been disabled permanently ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1500 alleged to have been spent on his treatment ? OPP

5. Whether the defendant No. 2 is the owner of the truck and is liable for damages. OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 7500 on account of shortening of expectancy of life and personal suffering? OPP

7. Relief.

(5) On issues the finding of the trial court was as under. It held issue 1 proved in favour of the plaintiff. It allowed Rs. 185,37 as the cost of the repairs of the scooter. About the permanent disability of the plaintiff it held that there was a permanent disability of 10 degree flexion of the left knee of the plaintiff due to the accident. Issue 4 was held proved in favour of the plaintiff and Rs. 1500 were allowed to