SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Mad) 321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
G. Ramanujam and S. Swamikkannu, JJ.
Hema Eamaswami
Versus
K.M. Valarance Panjani and others
A.A.O. No. 526 of 1977.
Decided on : 21st August, 1980..

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
V. P. Raman, for Appellant.

Without transfer of the policy to transferee insurance policy taken by transferor cannot subsist.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—Sections 31 and 96—Change of ownership of the Vehicle—Factual and physical transfer of vehicle made—Held, change of registry not a condition precedent for transfer of ownership of vehicle.

       

Judgment

Ramanujam, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, in so far as it is against the appellant, who is the fourth claimant before the Tribunal.

2. On 9th July, 1971 at about 6-15 p.m., near Vellar Bridge, Thozhudur, South Arcot District on the Madras-Trichy Main Road, lorry bearing registration number PYK 1249 driven by one Veerasami collided with an Ambassador Car MSC 7340 driven by one Ramasami. the husband of the appellant. As a result of the said collision, the said Ramasami sustained multiple grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the way to the hospital. The driver of the car, who was also travelling with the said Ramasami also sustained injuries. On the ground that the said collision was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the dependants, the mother, wife and two children of the deceased Ramasami filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2.00.000. The first claimant was the mother and the claimants 2 and 3 were the children of the deceased by his first wife and the fourth claimant was his second wife.

3. The said claim was resisted by the first respondent, the original owner of the lorry and the third respondent, the Insurance Company with which the lorry had been insured. The second respondent, who was the transferee of the lorry sometime, before the accident however remained ex parte. The stand taken by the respondents 1 and 3 in the claim petition before the Tribunal was that they are not liable to meet the claims for compensation, that the lorry had been transferred in favour of the second respondent on 17th April, 1971, and the accident having taken place on 9th July, 1971, neither the first respondent, the original owner of the vehicle nor the third respondent. Insurance Company are liable to meet the claim and that it is only the transferee who has become the owner of the vehicle is liable to meet the claim.

4. In a reply statement, the claimants stated that the vehicle alleged to have been sold by the first respondent to the second respondent was false, that on enquiries it was learnt that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the certificate of registration and the public carrier permit stood only in the name of the first respondent at the relevant date. If at all a sale had taken place, it should be only long subsequent to the date of the accident.

5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, who is an employee of the second respondent and that since the ownership of the lorry stood transferred to the second respondent at the time of the accident, he is liable to pay compensation in respect of the accident. The Tribunal also specifically found that the lorry which caused the accident had been transferred in favour of the second respondent by the first respondent on 17th April, 1971; but the registration certificate and the permit relating to the vehicle had not been transferred though the sale had been duly intimated to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Pondicherry on 20th April. 1971.

6. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that the deceased would have earned at least Rs. 1,200 per month and his total earning for the period of 28 years would come to Rs. 4,03,000. But taking into account, the benefit of lumpsum payment, it awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for all the claimants and the appellant was held to be entitled to Rs. 50,000 out of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000 which has been awarded as compensation. The fourth claimant has alone appealed and the other claimants have not agitated the matter further.

7. In this appeal filed by the fourth claimant, the findings of the Tribunal exonerating respondents 1 and 3 from liability has been challenged. The compensation aw















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top