Insurer remains liable for compensation despite ownership transfer if no violation of notice provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant before this court. The appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.2.2019 passed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 278 of 2014 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 44,16,540 through account payee cheque drawn in the name of applicant No. 1, Sachidanand Prasad, the husband of the deceased, within 30 days from the date of the award along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 20.11.2014 till its realization.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has submitted that the deceased Urmila Kumari was working and posted as ANM at P.H.C., Burmu, Sub-Centre Thakurgao, Block Burmu, District Ranchi, who lost her life on 5.8.2014 while she was travelling in the offending vehicle, i.e., Tempo bearing registration No. JH 01 - AP 3840 which turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. A police case was lodged for the alleged accident. The claim application was filed by the claimants.

4. The fact of the case is that the Tempo bearing registration No. JH 01 - AP 3840 was initially purchased by opposite party No. 1 / respondent No. 3 (Haldar Mahto) herein and he sold his vehicle to opposite party No. 2 / respondent No. 4 Vinod Kumar Singh and both have been noticed by the learned Tribunal, but even after due service of summons, they did not appear and the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against them vide order dated 9.10.2015.

5. The insurance company - Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant herein, appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed written statement stating therein that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party No. 1, but the RC stands in the name of Vinod Kumar Singh, opposite party No. 2, though the person who has paid premium is Haldar Mahto and no intimation was given as contemplated under S.103 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act (old) or under S.157 of the , 1988 (new) regarding the transfer of the ownership.

6. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned award on different counts:
(i) Ownership of the vehicle was changed from Haldar Mahto to Vinod Kumar Singh and no intimation was given to the insurance company, as contemplated under S.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act , as such, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award;
(ii) Learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted income tax at the rate of Rs. 500 per month which is equal to Rs. 6,000 per annum for annual income of Rs. 5,15,400;
(iii) The permit of the vehicle has not been produced before the learned Tribunal;
(iv) The future prospects of the deceased has been wrongly calculated; and
(v) The compensation amount of Rs. 44,16,540 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing, i.e., 20.11.2014 till its realization.

7. Point No. (i):
Learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, appearing for Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. has drawn attention of this court to his first point regarding insurance coverage of motor vehicle after sale to second owner from Haldar Mahto to Vinod Kumar Singh and relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania , 2003 ACJ 534 (SC) and reliance has been placed upon paras 4 to 8 which have been profitably quoted herein:
“(4) A perusal of S.94 and S.95 would further show that the said provisio