The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company towards third party claims, emphasizing the failure to notify the insurer of the transfer of ownership and the deemed transfer of insurance in favor of the new owner.

T.P.S.Mann, J.

1. Petition filed by Umed Singh-respondent under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- on account of receiving injuries suffered by him in a road accident, was partly accepted and he was granted the compensation of Rs. 16,000/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum, to be paid by Kewal Singh-respondent No. 2 and Gobind Ram-appellant, who were driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed the present appeal.

2. The only controversy in the present case is as to who has to pay the amount of compensation. Whether it was to be paid by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle or by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle in question was insured?

3. The offending truck bearing registration No. RJK.-7006 was owned by one Mohinder Singh. It stood insured with respondent-Insurance Company for third party risks with effect from 8.8.1985 upto 7.8.1986. The accident in question took place on 11.1.1986, which was admittedly within the currency of the insurance policy. However, it was the case of the appellant that he had purchased the offending truck" from Mohinder Singh. However, he did not apply for transfer of the Insurance Certificate in his name. After relying on the judgments in New India Asurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. E.K. Muhammed and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 109 and Precto Pipe Company and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 1984 A.C.J. 218, learned Tribunal held that Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay anything by way of compensation to the claimant. Only the driver and the owner, namely, Kewal Singh and Gobind Ram, were held liable for the same.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not be held liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle stood duly insured for third party risks.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the vehicle in question had been purchased by Gobind Ram much before the issuance of the insurance policy. In this regard, he has referred to the statement of Gobind Ram, who appeared as RW1, wherein he stated that he had purchased the truck about a year before 11.1.1986.

6. From the aforementioned statement of Gobind Ram it cannot be conclusively said that he had purchased the truck before 8.8.1985. The period of about a year mentioned by him was only by rough estimation. Apart from that, no other evidence has been brought by the Insurance Company on the record from which it can be said that the appellant had purchased the truck even before the issuance of the insurance policy.

7. It is then submitted by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the registered owner, who was the person insured, had not been impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition, therefore, no order could be passed against the Insurance Company. This objection is too hyper-technical and raised by the Insurance Company just to avoid the liability.

8. On the date of the accident, for all intents and purposes, it was Gobind Ram, who was owner of the offending vehicle. Though, the registration of the vehicle still stood in the name of Mohinder Singh, yet this fact could not be in the notice of the claimant, as the appellant was the owner and he had obtained a power of attorney from Mohinder Singh about having purchased the truck from him. He must be the one running around after the accident in question, including filing of an application for getting the truck released on Superdari. That was sufficient indication for the claimant to describe appellant Gobind Ram as the owner of the vehicle instead of Mohinder Singh, who was still the registered owner.

9. It is then submitted that after purchasing the truck from Mohinder Singh, the appellant did not send any intimation to the Insurance Company and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 10