1. A change in ownership of an insured vehicle terminates the contractual liability of the insurer. 2. The death of a person due to tetanus infection resulting from an injury sustained in an accident is compensable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The unsuccessful petitioners before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras (Court of Small Causes, Madras) are the applicants.

2. One Heera Bai, the wife of the first appellant and mother of appellants 2 to 4, sustained a minor injury on her left foot on 4-6-1967 due to being knocked down by the first respondent's car. But unfortunately, she developed tetanus despite receiving medical attention at the Government Royapettah Hospital for the injury and died on 22-6-1967. The appellants alleged that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the car by the first respondent and claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000. The second respondent was impleaded a party as it happened to be the insurer of the vehicle.

3. The first respondent resisted the claim and contended firstly, that the accident was not due to any negligence on his part, secondly, that the death of Heera Bai was not due to the injury sustained by her in the accident but due to novus actus interveniens and thirdly, the compensation claimed was excessive.

4. The second respondent contended that the policy of insurance granted by it in respect of the car and was in favour of one Radhakrishnan Pai, that the said Radhakrishna Pai sold the vehicle to the first respondent on 28-3-1967 without intimation to the second respondent, that the policy was effectively transferred to the name of the first respondent only with effect from 26-6-1967, that, as such, no contractual liability under the policy of insurance existed on the date of the accident and, therefore, any liability for the accident has to be met solely by the first respondent.

5. The Tribunal held that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent and the death of Herra Bai was not in consequence of the injury sustained by her in the accident. The Tribunal, thereafter, went into the hypothetical question as to what compensation the petitioners would be entitled to if their claim was to be upheld and whether the insurance company would not be liable to answer the claim. The finding of the Tribunal was that the petitioners would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,500 and the insurance company was not entitled to opt out of the policy of insurance granted by it.

6. To canvass the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal regarding the cause of accident and the cause of death, the petitioners have filed the civil miscellaneous appeal. For its part, the insurance company has preferred a memorandum of cross-objections to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal that, in the event of the petitioners being entitled to compensation, the insurance company would toe liable to answer the claim.

7. Mr. G. Rangaratnam, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to certain clinching factors in the evidence adduced in the case and such failure has resulted in the Tribunal arriving at a wrong conclusion about the cause of the accident. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to make reference to the evidence that has been adduced by both sides on this aspect of the case. On behalf of the appellants, P.W. 3, has given evidence stating he was an eyewitness to the accident and that he saw the first respondent viz., R.W. 1 driving the car fast and knocking down Heera Bai. Against such evidence, R.W. 1 and another witness, i.e. R.W. 3 have stated that the car was not driven fast and the accident happened when Heera Bai carelessly attempted to pass a stationary cycle without waiting for R.W. 1's car, which was coming from behind, passing her. It may be stated here that the accident took place on the Paripoorna Vinayakar Koil Street which is only 16 feet broad. Admittedly the accident took place during day-time and, it is common ground that, the place of impact was about 3' 8" from the northern end of the road. Heera Bai was walking west to east along the road and R.W. 1 was also driving in the same direction. It