Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle puts an end to the liability of the insurance company with which it was insured, even though the insured continues to be shown as the registered owner of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority.

1. This first appeal is directed against the award dt. 29-3-1986 made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short the Tribunal ) and has been filed by Labh Singh - one of the owners of the offending vehicle. One of the grievances made in the appeal is that the learned Tribunal wrongly absolved the National Insurance Company, respondent 4 (for short the Insurance Company ) of its liability. When the appeal came up for motion hearing before the Division Bench, notice was issued to the Insurance Company alone which means that as against Smt. Sunehri Devi and Jai Bhagwan, claimant-respondents 1 and 2 the appeal was dismissed. Roshan Lal respondent No. 3 was the driver and also a co-owner of the offending vehicle. He filed cross-objection No. 89-CII of 1986. Notice of the same was issued to the claimants and these were directed to come up with the main appeal. So, this judgement shall dispose of the appeal as also the cross-objections mentioned above.

2. At the outset it may be mentioned that Shri P.S. Chauhan, counsel for respondent 3, who is also counsel for the appellant, contended that since notice of the cross-objections was issued to the claimants, it is open to respondent 3 to assail the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that respondent 3 was negligent in driving the vehicle and determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimant respondents at Rs. 40,000.00 . I do not agree with this submission. The appeal was admitted only as against the Insurance Company. Respondent 3 who has filed the cross-objections has interest identical to that of the appellant. The scope of his cross-objections cannot be enlarged beyond what can be contended in the appeal. I, therefore, reject this submission.

3. Before I come to grips with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the liability of the Insurance Company, I find it necessary to narrate in brief the facts of the case. Smt. Sunehri Devi respondent 1 and her husband Jai Bhagwan respondent 2 filed the claim application before the learned Tribunal under Sec.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) for compensation in respect of the death of their two minor sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Vicky aged 7 and 5 years respectively in the motor accident. They were the residents of village Bandrana, tehsil Kaithal, district Kurukshetra. Respondent No. 1 along with her two aforesaid children had gone to see her parents at village Jirbari. On 7-6-1984 at about 5.30 A.M. she along with the two children had gone out in the fields to ease themselves. After answering the call of nature they were returning from the fields and were near the G.T. Road when car No. CH-2614 being driven by respondent No. 3 came at a high speed from Pipli side and struck against the minor children. Both of them received multiple serious and grievous injuries on various parts of their bodies. Vicky was removed to the L.N.J.P. Hospital at Kurukshetra where he died on the same day as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Rakesh Kumar was, however, referred by the Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra, to the P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he died on 9-6-1984. A case F.I.R. No. 130 dt. 7-6-1984 under Ss.279/338/304-A, I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Sadar Thanesar. It was averred in the claim application that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent 3. Claim for compensation to tune of Rs. 1,00,000.00 along with interest and costs was made by respondents 1 and 2 on account of the death of their two minor children. The appellant and respondent 3 filed a joint written statement denying the accident. They also denied that they were the owner and owner cum-driver respectively of the offending car. It was contended that the claim petition was false and respondents 1 and 2 had no locus standi to file the same. It was further maintained that the claim petition was barred by limi