Back
A Mathur, S.C. Pandey
Sabir Hussain
vs
Maya Bai And Ors.
Decided on : 14 November, 1995
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 96 - INSURANCE - TRANSFER OF VEHICLE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 4 - TRANSFER OF TITLE - REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE - OWNERSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Sabir Hussain, sold his truck to Zamin Ali in January 1981. The truck was involved in an accident on 1 August 1981, driven by Syed Masood Ali, an employee of Zamin Ali. The deceased, Keshav Prasad Shukla, was killed in the accident. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the wife and four minor daughters of the deceased, filed a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the appellant, Syed Masood Ali, Zamin Ali, and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) in favor of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization, against the appellant respondent Nos. 6 and 8.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of the truck from the appellant to Zamin Ali was valid and that the appellant was not liable for the accident. The court also held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation because the policy did not get automatically transferred by registration and there was no privity of contract between the new owner and the insurance company.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of the truck from the appellant to Zamin Ali was valid? 2. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer of the truck from the appellant to Zamin Ali was valid because: a. The Sale of Goods Act governs the transfer of title in movable goods, and not the Motor Vehicles Act. b. Registration of a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a condition precedent to the transfer of ownership. c. The appellant had delivered possession of the truck to Zamin Ali and accepted the purchase price. 2. The court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation because: a. The insurance policy did not get automatically transferred by registration. b. There was no privity of contract between the new owner and the insurance company.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and absolved the appellant and the respondent No. 8 of the liability to pay the compensation. The court also substituted a new award whereby the persons held liable to pay compensation by the court in these appeals shall be directed to pay the amount found by the Claims Tribunal due by way of damages.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This appeal is directed against award dated 30.9.1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1982. The Claims Tribunal has given an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, against the appellant respondent Nos. 6 and 8. The respondent No. 8, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the Appeal No. 489 of 1989 against the same award. The order in this appeal shall govern the disposal of that appeal too.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Keshav Prasad Shukla died in an accident leaving behind his wife and four minor daughters. They filed a claim under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth 'the Act'). It was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased Keshav Prasad was killed in an accident with truck No. CPB 6317 on 1.8.1987. The deceased met with the aforesaid accident when he was going on motor cycle from Hoshangabad to Itarsi along with a pillion rider. The truck was driven by the respondent No. 6, Syed Masood Ali negligently at an excessive speed from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road. The truck dashed against the motor cycle at great speed. Consequently, Keshav Prasad died and the pillion rider received injuries. At the time of his death, Keshav Prasad was aged 33 years. He was enrolled as an advocate in July, 1975 and was having an average monthly income of Rs. 1,500/-. The father of the appellant Badriprasad was alive and was aged about 60 years. His grandfather, Narmada Prasad was alive too and was aged about 81 years. Thus, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of future pecuniary loss suffered by them and another Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- were further claimed for damage to the motor cycle.
3. A joint reply was filed on behalf of Syed Masood Ali, respondent No. 6 and Zamin Ali, respondent No. 7. They denied that the accident was caused by negligence of the driver Syed Masood Ali. It was claimed that accident was caused because of the negligence of the deceased. The respondent No. 8, the insurance company, also filed a written statement contesting the claim that the company was liable to pay damages. It was claimed that the truck driver was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. It was further claimed that the liability of the company ceased because the appellant truck owner Sabir Hussain had transferred truck in favour of respondent No. 7, Zamin Ali prior to the date of accident without the company's consent. It was also claimed that in any case the company's liability did not extend beyond Rs. 50,000/-. It was the statutory liability and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 cannot claim more than that in absence of any term enhancing the liability.
4. The appellant who was added subsequently as non-applicant No. 2 (a) also filed his written statement. He submitted that he had transferred the truck in favour of respondent No. 7, Zamin Ali prior to the accident and the aforesaid purchaser was recorded as the owner with the R.T.O. Consequently, the appellant claimed, his liability ceased from the date of transfer.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 examined Sukhwati, PW 2, who deposed that she was accompanying the deceased on the motor cycle, when the truck No. CPB 6317 dashed against the motor cycle. It was driven at excessive speed as it came from the opposite direction. It dashed against the motor cycle of Keshav Prasad on the wrong side of road. Keshav Prasad died on the spot as a result of injuries suffered by him and she was thrown away. She also suffered injuries on account of the accident. The motor cycle too was damaged. As against the statement of this witness, the driver Syed Masood Ali was examined in defence. He admitted that accident took place and Kesh
AI
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
