An insurance policy issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, does not lapse upon the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the victim of an accident even after the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. On 9-12-1958 an accidant took place at about 1 P.M. on the Grand Trunk Road at a distance of 18½ miles from Delhi, as a result of which, a collision took place between two trucks Nos. PNR-5133 and DLD-5164. Mela Ram was driving truck No. DLD-5164. Due to the rash and negligent driving by Han Singh, who was the driver of truck No. PNR-5133, Mela Ram sustained severe injuries, as a result of which he died the same night in the Civil Hospital, Sonepat, district Rohtak. Mrs. Maya Devi, widow of Mela Ram deceased, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons, filed an application before the Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, Jullundur, on 14 1.1959 for compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- on account of the death of her husband. On 10.2.1959 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, was established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Mrs. Maya Devi was advised to apply to the Chairman of this Tribunal for compensation on the prescribed form. Her application was received by the Tribunal on 26.2.1959 and the same was registered on 3.3.1959. In this application, she impleaded the following persons :

(1) Moti Ram and Desa Singh as the owners of truck No. PNR. 5133 ;

(2) Hari Singh, the driver of this truck, who was the employee of Moti Ram and Desa Singh : and

(3) New India Assurance Company Limited with which truck No. PNR-5133 was insured.

2. On 3.6.1959 a joint written statement was filed by Moti Ram and Hari Singh. They inter alia pleaded that the truck in question did not belong to them ; that it was originally owned by Desa Singh, who had, however, transferred the same on 29-11-1957, that is more than one year before the alleged accident, to Parkash Chand son of Moti Ram and no claim could, therefore, be made against either Moti Ram or Hari Singh ; that Hari Singh was not guilty of any rash and negligent act in driving the truck and, as a matter of fact, the accident was brought about by the deceased himself ; that the truck bearing No. DLD-5164 was insured with another Insurance Company, from whom the applicants were entitled to get their compensation ; and that, in any case, truck No. PNR-5133 was insured against third party risk with the New India Assurance Company Limited and in case the applicants were found to be entitled to any compensation, it was only this Insurance Company, which was liable to pay the same.

3. On the same day, that is, 3.6.1959, the Tribunal ordered that since, according to the above written statement, Parkash Chand was the owner of the truck, he should be impleaded as a respondent. Consequently, his name was added in the original application. Thereupon, the applicants submitted that since the responsbility of Desa Singh had been taken over by Parkash Chand, who had been added as a respondent, they did not wish to proceed against Desa Singh and wanted to give him up. The said prayer was granted by the Tribunal and his name was struck off from the list of respondents.

4. On 11.7.1959 the New India Assurance Company Limited in their written statement, inter-alia, pleaded that the claim was time-barred ; that the applicants had no cause of action against them ; that the alleged accident was due to the negligent act of the deceased himself; and that they were in no way liable to pay any compensation to the applicants.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the claim application is within time ? If not, whether there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay ?

2. Whether the accident is the result of the rash and negligent act of the driver of truck No. PNR-5133 ?

3. To what compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled ?

4. To what extent the owner and Assurance Company are liable ?

5. What is the effect of truck No. DLD 5164 being insured with Messrs. Jupitor Insurance Company ?

6. Relief.

6. The Tribunal held that the claim application was within time ; that the accident was the result of rash and negligent act