The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount if the insured had not intimated the insurer regarding the factum of transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to the appellant.

G.R.Majithia, J.

1. This judgment disposes of FAO No. 352 of 1987, Cross objection No. 76-C-II of 1989 in F.A.O. No. 352 of 1987 and FAO 611 of 1987.

2. The facts:-

A reference to relevant facts for adjudicating the question of law raised in these appeals has been made from the pleadings in File No. 15 of 27-8-1984 (F.A.O. No. 352 of 1987). Smt. Sukhrania and Ram Dhan (hereinafter, referred to as the claimants) lost their son Chinku in an accident. Chinku was rickshaw puller by profession and while he was going to the Khokhas opposite to the Cinema Alankar Cinema on March 1, 1984 at about 12 noon to have a change of Rs. 5/- Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar were coming from Goniana side on a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. P.U.T. 3504, on the wrong side of the road and were driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any horn struck against Chinku. The accident was witnessed by Nand Lal son of Durga Parshad, rickshaw puller, Shiv Lal son of Dhannu Ram, rickshaw puller, Ram Sarjiwan, brother of Chinku, Ram Sarup and one Prem Kumar, resident of Bhatinda, Chinku was taken to Civil Hospital Bhatinda by these persons for medical treatment. He was given treatment at Civil Hospital, Bhatinda. His condition worsened and he was referred to C.M.C. Ludhiana, where he was admitted on March 2, 1984 in Unit No. 437522. Appellant No. 1 accompanied Chinku to C.M.C. Ludhiana and had given an undertaking that he would bear all the expenses for the treatment but later on resiled from the same. Chinku died in C.M.C. Ludhiana on May 5, 1984. The hospital authorities did not handover his dead-body to the claimants since they could not pay the medical expenses. The claimants moved a petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the 1939 Act). The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were arrayed as party respondent to the petition.

3. Pawan Kumar and Rikhi Ram (Appellant No. 1) filed a joint written statement denying the accident and pleaded that the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. PUT -3504 did not belong to them. Rather Azad Engineering Works, Bhatinda was the owner of the vehicle. Azad Engineering Works, Bhatinda was added as a party respondent to the petition the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by order, dated November 18, 1986 impleaded respondent No. 4 as party respondent to the claim petition. Appellant No. 1 and Azad Engineering Works filed another written statement taking the plea that Rikhi Ram was not the owner of the vehicle in question. Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 6 filed a separate written statement taking identical objections as were taken by the appellants. The New India Assurance Company Limited admitted the factum of the insurance of the motor cycle with it. However, it pleaded that it was got insured by Bhagwan Rai Amrit Lal Commission Agents, Bhucho Mandi and they were the registered owner of the vehicle with it. It further pleaded the purchase of the vehicle in question made by Rikhi Ram and Azad Engineering Works (Appellants) was not intimated to the Insurance Company and as such, the policy had not been transferred in the name of the purchasers.

4. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Chinku died due to the rash and negligent driving of a motor cycle bearing No. PUT-3504 driven by Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 1 and 1-A ? OPA.

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled and from whom ? OPA.

3. Relief.

5. Under Issue No. 1. the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by Ashok Kumar (Respondent No. 6). It further held that the accident took place in front of the Cinema and it was incumbent upon the driver of the vehicle to have driven the vehicle in a careful and cautious manner so that even if any pedestrian comes in front of the vehicle, he could have stopped the same. He applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to the facts of the instant case. Under issue No. 2, it held that the