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

1979 Supreme(Ori) 67

High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Mohanti, J.
P.K.PANDA - Appellant
Versus
PREMALATA CHOUDHURY - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 163  Of  1976
Decided On : 12/10/1979

Advocates Appeared:
K.C.MOHANTY, P.C.MISHRA, P.ROY, R.MOHANTY

Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle without updating the registration does not invalidate the transfer, but the insurance policy lapses upon such transfer, absolving the insurance company from liability.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - OWNERSHIP TRANSFER - INSURANCE POLICY LAPSE - COMPENSATION AWARD - [SECTION 123 T.P. ACT, SECTION 22, 24, 31 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT]

Fact of the Case:

A fatal accident involving a motorcycle resulted in the death of an advocate, Khetramohan Choudhury. The appellant, Prafulla Kumar Panda, was driving the motorcycle, and the deceased was riding pillion. The insurance policy for the motorcycle had lapsed due to the transfer of ownership from the registered owner, Shyama Sundar Misra, to the appellant. The claimants, the widow and children of the deceased, sought compensation from the appellant, Misra, and the insurance company.

Finding of the Court:

1. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant. 2. The appellant was the owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident. 3. The insurance policy had lapsed due to the transfer of ownership and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. 4. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not high and excessive.

Issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the appellant? 2. Whether on the date of accident the motorcycle in question was owned by the appellant or the respondent No. 7 Shri s. S. Misra? 3. Whether the respondent No. 8 --The New India Assurance company --is liable to pay the Compensation? 4. Whether the amount of compensation awarded is high and excessive?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant was negligent in not reducing the speed while approaching the bend, in not keeping to the left side of the road, and in taking a turn to the right side. 2. The transfer of ownership of the motorcycle from Misra to the appellant was complete, even though the registration was not updated. 3. The insurance policy lapsed upon the transfer of ownership, and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. 4. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable, considering the deceased's income and family circumstances.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decision of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri awarding a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of respondents 1 to 6.

( 2 ) THE accident which resulted in the death of Khetramohan Choudhury, an advocate of this Court, occurred on 17-7-73 and it involved a motor cycle hearing No. ORO 9230. This motor cycle was purchased by respondent No. 7 shyarna Sundar Misra on 16-5-73 and was registered in his name. He has taken an insurance policy from the New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No. 8), which was valid till 16-5-74. The appellant Prafulla Kumar panda is the sister's husband of the said Shyama Sundar Misra. The motor cycle had been given to him as dowry on the occasion or his marriage which took place on 27-5-73.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the widow of late Khetramohan Choudhury and respondents 2 to 6 are his children. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,28,000/-alleging that Shri P. K. Panda had engaged late Choudhury to defend him in a case at Puri and on the date of accident Shri Panda requested late choudhury to go to Puri in that connexion. Though late Choudhury wanted to travel by train or bus, Shri Panda insisted on taking him on his motor cycle. Late Choudhury reluctantly agreed to travel on the back of the motor cycle. Shri panda drove the motor cycle at a high speed most rashly and negligently and caused the accident. As a result of this accident, late Choudhury was thrown out of the motor cycle and he sustained serious injuries which resulted in his death. According to the claimants, late Choudhury was earning about Rs. 1,000/- per month and was contributing Rs. 800/-per month for maintenance of his family. He was aged 47 years at the time of his death and would have normally lived up to the age of at least 70 years. The claimants contended that shri P. K. Panda, Shri S. S. Misra and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. , were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

( 4 ) THE stand taken by Shri S. S. Misra was that he was neither the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident nor had he authorised its driving by Shri P. K. Panda. He gave the motor cycle to Shri Panda as dowry on the occasion of his marriage which took place on 27-5-73 arid applied to the Regional Transport oificer, Rourkela for recording the transfer of ownership with effect from 28-5 73. His contention was that he had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle since 28-5-73 and was not liable to pay compensation for the accident which occurred long after the transfer of ownership.

( 5 ) SHRI P. K. Panda, the appellant, denied the allegation that he had engaged late Choudhury to defend him in a case at Puri. His contention was that on the date of accident while he was going to Puri, on the way he met late Choudhury who requested him for a lift on the pillion of the motor cycle. At first he did not agree, but ultimately agreed to give a lift being goaded and persuaded by late choudhury. He denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and stated that while he was negotiating a road-bend he turned the vehicle to the right side to avoid impact with two bullock carts and at the moment late Choudhury out of misapprehension jumped down and met with the accident.

( 6 ) THE Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation for the death of a pillion rider and also contended that the policy of insurance had lapsed on the transfer of ownership.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence led, by the parties, came to the findings (1) that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant Shri P. K Panda; (2) that Shri S. S. Misra had ceased to be the owner of the vehicle by the date of accident and Shri Panda was really the owner on that date; (3) that after transfer of the vehicle to Shri Panda the policy of insurance had lap






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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