The central legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the death of a third party is not automatic and is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. On February 22, 1997, Siri Pal alias Pala Ram, who was going on a bicycle, was hit by truck bearing Registration No. HYA-9416. The accident was fatal. The two sons of the deceased filed claim application. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged about 57 years of age at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. l,500/- per month. By fixing the monthly dependency of Rs. 700/- and applying a multiplier of 10, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 84,000/-. Another amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded on account of funeral and other incidental charges. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 89,000 was awarded by the Tribunal. Interest @ 2% per annum on this amount was also awarded.

2. Aggrieved by the award, Ram Chander, the owner of the vehicle, has filed the present appeal. It is urged that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the compensation shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle and not by the New India Assurance Company Ltd, Chandigarh-Respondent No. 4.

3. Mr. B. S. Walia, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the vehicle having been insured, the Insurance Company could not have been absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner for the death of a third party.

4. Admittedly, the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the appellant on May 30, 1996. It is also the admitted position that an insurance policy had been obtained by the original owner, Som Nath. However, no intimation regarding the transfer of the truck or for the transfer of the policy was given by the appellant to the Insurance Company. Still further, in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the original owner, Som Nath, was not even impleaded as a party. Neither the appellant nor his driver, Naib Singh, even entered the witness-box. In fact, even in the written statement filed by the appellant, it was not suggested that Som Nath was the owner of the truck.

5. The factual position that emerges is that there was no contract between the appellant and the Insurance Company for indemnifying him for any injury to a third party. Despite the lapse of more than eight months, the appellant took no step for the transfer of the policy or for getting a new policy. In this situation, the appellant has to thank himself for the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Mr. Walia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1996 (112) Pun LR 202 : (AIR 1996 SC 586), the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is clearly postulated under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 1988 Act). He has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela Rani, (1998) 6 JT (SC) 388 : (AIR 1999 SC 56).

7. We have perused these decisions. The factual position in both the cases was materially different. In both the cases, intimation regarding the transfer of the vehicle had been given to the Insurance Company. There was no refusal from the insurer regarding the transfer of the policy. In this situation, it was held that the insurance policy shall not lapse. Such is not the position in the present case. It is admitted that no intimation as required under Section 157 of the 1988 Act had been given by the appellant to the Insurance Company. In such a situation, it cannot be presumed that the liability to indemnify the owner stood transferred from Som Nath to the present appellant.

8. Mr. Walia contends that the risk in respect of third party shall still be deemed to be covered by virtue of the provisions of Section 146 of the 1988 Act. The contention is misconceived. This provision contains a prohibition. It debars an owner from using a vehicle till he has obtained a policy in accordance with the r