Back
S.B. Sakrikar, A Tiwari J.
Nagindas And Anr.
vs
Nasir Ali And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 10 January, 1996
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FAILURE TO INTIMATE INSURANCE COMPANY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THIRD PARTY CLAIMANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were injured in an accident involving an autorickshaw insured with the respondent insurance company. The original owner of the autorickshaw had transferred ownership to the first respondent prior to the accident, but the registration and insurance policy remained in the name of the original owner. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the appellants, holding only the owner and driver of the autorickshaw liable, and exonerating the insurance company. The appellants challenged this decision in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the insurance company was jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants along with the owner and driver of the autorickshaw. The Court found that the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident, and that the insurance company had accepted premiums from the new owner after the transfer of ownership. The Court also held that the insurance company could not escape liability on the ground of absence of mutation of the registration certificate in the name of the new owner.
Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants, despite the fact that the registration and insurance policy of the autorickshaw remained in the name of the original owner after the transfer of ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants because: * The insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident. * The insurance company had accepted premiums from the new owner after the transfer of ownership. * The insurance company could not escape liability on the ground of absence of mutation of the registration certificate in the name of the new owner.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the finding of the Tribunal and the learned single Judge exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. The Court ordered the insurance company to pay compensation to the appellants as awarded by the Tribunal.
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. The appellants/ claimants have preferred the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 31.7.1990 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 198 of 1988, thereby dismissing the Misc. Appeal Nos. 198 and 203 of 1988 and holding the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the original registered owner of the auto-rickshaw, respondent No. 4 not liable to pay the compensation.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass that both the appellants filed separate claim petitions before the V Additional M.A.C.T. at Indore with regard to the injuries caused to them in the accident occurred on 20.5.1979 due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing registration No. MPF 8835. In the claim petitions, it was alleged that on the date of the accident, respondent No. 1, Nasir Ali was the owner of the autorickshaw and respondent No. 4, Jagdeesh Kumar was the registered owner. Respondent No. 2, Vijay Kumar was the driver of the autorickshaw at the relevant time on behalf of respondent No. 1, Nasir Ali. The autorickshaw was insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company. The claim petitions were resisted by all the respondents. The contention of respondent No. 4 is that the autorickshaw was transferred by him to the respondent No. 1 much prior to the alleged accident. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No. 3 in its written statement, alleged that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Jagdeesh Kumar but as the autorickshaw was transferred to Nasir Ali, respondent No. 1 without any intimation to the insurance company, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1. The other respondents also resisted the claim petition on various grounds.
3. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties allowed the claim applications filed on behalf of the appellants and passed the award of Rs. 7,720/- in favour of the appellant Meerabai and award of Rs. 8,556/- in favour of the appellant Nagindas with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the amount. The Tribunal also held that only respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, both the appellants preferred the appeal before this Court.
4. Both the appeals were heard by the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the appeals by a common order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 1988 as stated above. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed these Letters Patent Appeals.
5. We have heard Mr. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 in both the appeals. None appeared for other respondents.
6. The only contention urged by the counsel appearing for the appellants is that on the date of alleged accident, the auto-rickshaw was insured with respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. under a policy of third party risk. Therefore, respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Harcharan Singh v. Turza Bai 1995 ACJ 423 (MP) and Nani Bai v. Ishaque Khan 1995 ACJ 292 (MP).
7. In oppugnation, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, insurance company, contended that it is not disputed that respondent No. 4, Jagdeesh Kumar transferred ownership of the autorickshaw in question to respondent No. 1, Nasir Ali much prior to the alleged accident under an agreement of transfer. The alleged transfer of the autorickshaw was not even intimated to the insurance company either by the transferor or the transferee of the vehicle. In such a situation, as the insurance policy was not transferred in
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
