The main legal point established in the judgment is the insurer's liability to indemnify a third party claim, regardless of the transfer of the vehicle during the currency of the 3rd party risk insurance, and the definition of a third party for the purpose of 'no fault' liability compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

1. Appellant is aggrieved of having been foisted with liability to pay interim compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) to the claimants by order dated 14.3.2012 passed by ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kupwara. Hence he has filed this Civil 1st Misc. Appeal.

2. Heard. I have perused the record.

3. Briefly, claimants (respondents 1 to 4) have filed a claim for compensation under section 166 of the Act arising out of death of Anayat-ullah Mir. They had also filed a claim for `no fault' liability compensation under section 140 of the Act. It has been alleged by them that on 27.11.2010 the deceased suffered injuries and died in a motor accident involving a tractor bearing registration No. JK09-4367. In the claim application appellant has been arrayed as owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 6 as driver. Respondent no. 5 has been arrayed as insurer.

4. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle as at the time of accident was insured with the respondent no. 5 for 3rd party risk and the appellant, in his capacity as owner, was the insured person. Contention of the appellant, however, was that prior to the alleged occurrence the vehicle was sold by him to respondent no. 7. Impugned order would show that the ld. tribunal absolved the insurer from the liability to pay the interim compensation taking the view that the stand taken by the claimants is contradictory to the contents in the FIR inasmuch as, claimants' case is that at time of accident deceased was hit by the tractor while he was walking on the road whereas in the FIR it has come that the deceased alongwith two other persons was traveling by the tractor. In this context ld. Tribunal has taken note that as per the insurance policy none other than driver has been insured and observed that the contradictory stands are required to be proved by leading evidence. Ld. Tribunal has, therefore, foisted the liability on the owner/insured person. Besides, the ld. Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea that earlier than the accident he had sold the tractor to respondent no. 7 herein by agreement deeds dated 17.11.2009 & 1.10.2011 holding that the transfer was not in conformity with the Section 50 of the Act.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Id. Tribunal has fallen into error by ignoring the factum of transfer of offending vehicle from the appellant to respondent no. 7 prior to the alleged accident and further by not foisting liability upon insurance company as the vehicle was insured for third party risk. Ld. counsel for respondents 1 to 4 ( claimants) Mr. RA Gadda, firstly has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal contending that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- as required under first proviso to Section 173 of the Act has not been made by the appellant. Per contra, ld. counsel for the appellant would say that after filing this appeal he under the order of this court has deposited the entire award amount in this court so requirement of the proviso stands automatically fulfilled. In support he has relied upon AIR 1987 Allahabad 15. Mr. Gadda would further say that the ld. Tribunal has fallen into error by not foisting the liability upon the insurer as the vehicle was duly insured for 3rd party risk as at the time of accident and question of negligence under section 140 of the Act is immaterial Mr. Tariq Ahmad, ld. Counsel for the insurance Company, while not refusing that the offending vehicle was insured for third party risk, would say that the deceased, as he was traveling by the tractor, was not covered under the insurance policy.

6. The legal objection raised by the ld. counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is liable to be rejected as law in this regard by now is well settled. First proviso to section 173 of the Act reads:

"173. Appeals.......

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document