The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation in third party claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

T.P.S. MANN, J. - Petition filed by Umed Singh-respondent under Section110-A 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 partlyaccepted and he was granted the compensation of Rs. 16,000/-alongwith costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum, to be paid byKewal 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 thepresent appeal.

F.A.O. No. 172 of 1988

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 InsuranceCompany 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 theoffending truck from Mohinder Singh. However, he did not apply fortransfer of the Insurance Certificate in his name. After relying on the judgments in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. E.K. Muhammed and others 1985 ACJ 109 and Precto Pipe Company and another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 1984 ACJ 218, learned Tribunal held that Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay anything by way of compensation to the claimant. Onlythe 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 thevehicle stood duly insured for third party risks.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that thevehicle 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 before8.8.1985. The period of about a year mentioned by him was only byrough estimation. Apart from that, no other evidence has beenbrought by the Insurance Company on the record from which it can be said that the appellant had purchased the truck even before theissuance of the insurance policy.

7. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the InsuranceCompany that the registered owner, who was the person insured, had not been impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition, therefore, noorder could be passed against the Insurance Company. This objection is too hyper-technical and raised by the Insurance Company just to avoid the liability. 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 ofMohinder 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 claimantto describe appellant Gobind Ram as the owner of the vehicle insteadof Mohinder Singh, who was still the registered owner.

8. It is then submitted that after purchasing the truck fromMohinder Singh, the appellant did not send any intimation to the Insurance Company and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section113