Back
1994 JLJ 197
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
Harcharan Singh v. Smt. Turza Bai and others
M.A. No. 380 of 1983; Decided on 21.1.1994.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 --Ss. 31 and 103A -- fact of transfer of vehicle not informed in accordance with these provisions -- registered owner and insurer cannot avoid their liability in case of third party claim -- non-compliance of S.103A by the registered owner -- may give rise to recovery of the amount paid by insurer.
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss.96 (2), 131 and 103A -- transfer of vehicle not intimated in accordance with the provisions of Ss. 31 and 103A -- insurer cannot avoid its liability in case of third party claim -- non-intimation of transfer -- is not provided as defence for insurer under S. 96 (2).
So far as the registered owner is concerned, if he has not discharged his statutory responsibility under section 31 of the Act, of informing the registering authority of the fact of transfer of the vehicle, his liability for the accident caused by the vehicle involved continues till the transferee is not registered as an owner.
Transfer of the vehicle is not one of the grounds under section 96 (2) of the Act, on which the Insurance Company can advance a defence and deny its liability to the third party. In case where such a transfer is made of the vehicle without following the provisions by the party of section 103A of the Act, it would be open to the Insurance Company to proceed against the registered owner for re-imbursement of the compensation amount which was required to be paid under the cover of the policy to the third party. That would, however, be in an independent proceeding against the insured, based on the policy conditions of the Insurance. As against third party, however, in a claim petition, the Insurance Company can have no such defence. AIR 1986 MP 21,1993 MPLJ 798, AIR 1976 Raj. 71 and AIR 1990 Mad. 14 relied on. 1980 ACJ 233 (SC), 1963 JLJ 336 and 1980 ACJ 126 distinguished.[Paras 6 to 9
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.1 R. 10 and O. 6 R. 17 -- claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act -- owner of vehicle and insurer thereof -- may be impleaded at any stage of the case. [Para 11
¼1½ lk{kh & odkyrukes ij vius gLrk{kjksa dk çR;k[;ku & fuyZTt :Ik ls csbZeku vkSj funauh; :Ik ls >wBk gSA ¿iSjk 6
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 31 rFkk 103d & ;ku ds varj.k ls rF; dh bu mica/kksa ds vuqlkj bfÙkyk ugha & ij O;fDr ds nkos dh n‘kk esa Lokeh vkSj chekdrkZ vius nkf;Ro ls cp ugha ldrs & Lokeh }kjk /kkjk 103d dk vuuqikyu & chekdrkZ }kjk lanÙk jde dh olwyh mn~Hkwr gks ldrh gSA
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 & /kkjk 96 ¼2½] 31 rFkk 103d & ;ku dk varj.k /kkjk 31 rFkk 103 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lwfpr ugha fd;k x;k & ij O;fDr ds nkos dh n‘kk esa chekdrkZ vius nkf;Ro ls cp ugha ldrk & varj.k dh lwpuk ugha fn;k tkuk & /kkjk 96 ¼2½ ds v/khu chekdrkZ dks çfrj{kk dh Hkk¡fr micaf/kr ugha gSaA
tgk¡ rd jftLVªhÑr Lokeh dk laca/k gS] ;fn mlus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 31 ds v/khu ;ku ds varj.k dk rF; jftLVªhdj.k çkf/kdkjh dks lwfpr djus dh viuh dkuwuh tokacnkjh dk ikyu ugha fd;k gS] ;ku }kjk dkfjr nq?kZVuk ds fy, mldk nkf;Ro varfjrh ds Lokeh dh Hkk¡fr jftLVj gksus rd pkyw jgrk gSA
;ku dk varj.k /kkjk 96 ¼2½ ds v/khu vk/kkjksa esa ls ,d ugha gSa ftl ij chek daiuh viuh çfrj{kk djrs gq, ij O;fDr ds çfr vius nkf;Ro dk çR;k[;ku dj ldsA ml n‘kk esa tc Ik{kdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 103d ds mica/kksa dk vuqlj.k fd, fcuk ;ku dk ,slk varj.k fd;k x;k gS] chek daiuh blds fy, Lora= gksxh fd og ikfylh ds tksf[ke ds v/khu ij O;fDr dks lanÙk dh tkus ds fy, visf{kr çfrdj dh jde dh çfriwfrZ fd, tkus dh dk;Zokgh jftLVªhÑr Lokeh ds fo#) djsA rFkkfi] ;g chekÑr ds fo#) chek dh ‘krks± ij vk/kkfjr Lora= dk;Zokgh gksxhA fdarq nkok vthZ esa chek daiuh dks ij O;fDr ds fo#) ,slh çfrj{kk miyC/k ugha gSaA , vkb vkj 1986 e-ç- 21] 1993 ,e ih ,y ts 798] , vkb vkj 1976 jktLFkku 71 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 enzkl 14 voyafcrA 1980 , lh ts 233 ¼,l lh½] 1963 ts ,y ts 336 rFkk 1980 , lh ts 126 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 6 ls 9
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-1 fu-10 rFkk vk-6 fu-17 & eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu nkok vthZ & ;ku dk Lokeh vkSj mldk chekdrkZ & ekeys ds fdlh Hkh çØe ij Ik{kdkj cuk, tk ldrs gSaA ¿iSjk 11
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.--1. The deceased Devaji Kunbi lost his life in a truck accident on the night intervening 28th and 29th June, 1980. He was employed on the truck as one of the labourers for loading and unloading of goods. In the claim petition filed by his dependents, the appellant was impleaded as owner of truck No. CPR, 9128, which was involved in the accident. The driver of the truck was one Nago, who was also made a party (respondent No.5) in this appeal, but he remained ex-parte. The respondent No.6, The New India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was alleged to have been insured was not made party in the claim petition before the Tribunal. At the fag end of the trial of the case, the claimants filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Order 6, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for impleading the Insurance Company (respondent No.6) and one Harbhajan Singh' s/o Amrik Singh, who was registered as the owner of the truck in the office of the R.T.A. Surprisingly, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal by order passed on 30.6.1983 rejected the application filed by the claimants for impleading, the Insurance Company and the registered owner of the truck, as parties to the case. By that order the Tribunal has held that on the date of accident, the actual and real owner of the truck was the appellant and it is, therefore, not necessary to implead the registered owner as a party to the case, at the fag end of the case. So far as the impleading of the Insurance Company was concerned, the learned member held that the Insurance Company can be noticed under section 96 (2) of the M. V. Act, at any stage before or after passing of the award in the case. The Tribunal passed the award on 16.7.1983, without impleading the registered owner and the Insurance Company as parties to the case. The Claims Tribunal, did not notice any of the two parties, before or after passing of the award. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dated 16.7.1983 completely disbelieved the statement of the present appellant that he was not the owner of the truck involved in the accident. 'The Tribunal, therefore, passed an award of granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 19,800/-, only against the present appellant, describing him as the real owner of the truck.
2. In this appeal before me, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant admits that under the award of the Tribunal, nothing has been paid to the claimants so far. It is obvious that the claimants, having suffered a great tragedy and having not been paid anything so far, are unable to engage any lawyer to defend themselves. Inspite of notice of this appeal, they have not appeared. The respondent No.5, driver was already exparte in the Court below and service of notice on him can be dispensed with.
3. In this appeal before me, the appellant strenuously argued that he had nothing to do with the truck involved in the accident and he is not the owner of the same. It is pointed out on his behalf, that having discovered the fact that the registered owner of the truck was one Harbhajan Singh s/o Amrik Singh and the, truck having been insured with the Insurance Company (Respondent No.6), an application was moved before the Tribunal under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, for amendment of the written statement and for bringing the above facts on record. The only argument advanced on behalf of the present appellant is that the Claims Tribunal committed a serious error of law and procedure in -not impleading the registered owner of the truck and the Insurance Company, as parties to the case.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 Insurance Company very forcefully argued that on the findings of the Tribunal that the registered owner had transferred the title and possession of the truck to the present appellant, without intimation to the Insurance Company and without getting the registration, transferred, the liability of the Insurance company, under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
