An insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident involving an insured vehicle, even if the vehicle has been sold to another person before the accident, if the sale is not complete and the owner still has control over the vehicle.

P.D. Muley, J.

1. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against an award dated 30-8-1975 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 74 of 1973, awarding compensation of Rs. 15,500/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum alone with costs, in favour of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who had initially claimed Rs. 1,10,000/- as total compensation.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal which are no lonser in dispute and also Droved are as under: That respondent No. 4 Babulal was the owner of truck Number MPF-6083, the registration of which stood in his name. The said truck was insured by him with the appellant United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited. On 14-3-73 the said truck MPF (5083 was driven by respondent No. 5 Nathusingh, who was the driver of the said truck. On that date while Devilal. the deceased was coming from the left hand side of the road on his cycle, from the overbridge side, the said truck which was being driven at an excessively high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him due to which Devilal died on the spot, who was 55 years old at the time of his death and was working in Malwa Mills, Indore. his monthly income being Rupees 256/- D. m. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who happen to be the widow, son and daughter respectively therefore, filed the present claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs. 1,10.000/-under different heads as detailed in the application.

3. Respondent No. 5 Nathusingh, the driver remained ex parte in the trial Court as also he has remained ex parte in this Court. Respondent No. 4 Babulal denied his liability on the ground that he had sold the truck to respondent No. 6 M/s. Mangilal Suvalal Jain on 20-12-72 as per Ex. D-1, of which possession was handed over on 21-12-72 and that respondent No. 5 Nathusingh was not his driver at the time of the accident. He also denied the allegations regarding the manner in which the accident occurred and thus also denied the quantum of damages claimed. Respondent No. 6 M/s. Mangilal Suvalal Jain appeared initially, but later remained ex parte. The appellant Insurance Company also denied its liability as according to them their liability had ceased as soon as respondent No. 4 Babulal had transferred the truck to respondent No. 6 M/s. Mangilal Suvalal Jain. They also alleged that respondent No. 5 Nathusingh did not hold any valid driving license.

4. The learned Member of the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, after framing issues and after recording evidence thereon, found that on 14-3-73 the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 5 Nathusingh due to which Devilal. who was proceeding on the GSTI Road on his cycle was fatally knocked down. He also found that on the date of the accident the said truck was not sold by respondent No. 4 Babulal to resnondent No. 6 M/s. Mangilal Suvalal Jain, that on 21-12-72 the said truck was in the possession of respondent No. 6. that on the date of the accident respondent No. 4 was the owner of the said truck, that respondent No. 5 Nathusingh was driving the said truck on the day of the accident in the capacity of a servant of respondent No. 4 Babulal. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned it has been found on evidence that respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,500/-with costs and interest. Accordingly it save an award against the appellant as also against respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as stated above. However, except the appellant, respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have not filed any appeal against the award.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Sujan Jain did not and could not challenge the factum of accident and the manner in which it took place resulting in the death of Devilal as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by the driver respondent No. 5 Nathusingh w