( 1. ) THESE two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17. 12. 1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sheopur under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.

( 2. ) CLAIMANTS filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10. 6. 1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F. I. R. was lodged and offence was registered against man Mohan under sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

( 3. ) IT was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.

( 4. ) THE owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10. 6. 1991. Jeep was sold on 9. 5. 1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.

( 5. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.

( 6. ) MR. Shishir Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in m. A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29. 5. 1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L. Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.

( 7. ) MR. B. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum, 2004 acj 1903 (SC ).

( 8. ) MR. M. P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.

( 9. ) MR. N. D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.

( 10. ) IT has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29. 5. 1991.

( 11. ) THE Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 781 (SC), laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does