Gujarat High Court
The United India Fire And General ... vs Narendra Kumar Devshi Through L.Rs.' ... on 17 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1(1986)ACC95
JUDGMENT J.P. Desai, J.
1. One Narendrakumar Devshi died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 22-12-1976. The vehicle involved in the incident was a station wagon bearing No. GJP. 1493 in which the deceased Narendrakumar and one other person were travelling. The deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him, while the other person sustained injuries, MAC Applications were filed before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar, being MAC Application No. 31 of 1977 by the heirs and legal representative of the deceased Narendrakumar, while the other being MAC Applications No. 32 of 1977 by the injured Natvarlal Ragnath. The claim petitions were contended by the opponents including the Insurance Company which has filed this appeal. The learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the station wagon by the driver and assessed the compensation at Rs. 59550/- for the death of the deceased Narendrakumar. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 11,000/-as compensation in the other application, but we are not concerned with the same because no appeal has been filed so far as that case is concerned.
2. The learned advocate Mr. P.V. Nanavati who appears for the appellant-Insurance Company (opponent No. 5 in MAC Application No. 31 of 1977) raised the following contentions for our consideration:
(1) The vehicle which belonged to respondent No. 10 orig. opponent No. 2 was transferred by him to respondent No. 11 orig. opponent No. 3 and, therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability (2) The vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was not permitted to be used to carry passengers as per the terms of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable.
3. So far as the first contention is concerned, the evidence on record shows that there was an agreement to transfer the vehicle between opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 3, but the record of the RTO did not show that the vehicle was in fact transferred by the original owner, the insured to opponent No. 3. In view of this, the submission made by Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted. He, of course, relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shantilal Mohanlal and Anr. v. Aher Bawanji Malde and Ors. reported in 26 (1) GLR 466 in support of his submission that if a vehicle is transferred by the insured, the Insurance Company will be absolved from its liability unless the Insurance Company is informed of the transfer and the policy is transferred in the name of the transfer of the vehicle. This question, however, need not detain us any mere because it is not established in the present case that the vehicle was in fact transferred by the insured opponent No. 2 to opponent No. 3 as contended by the Insurance Company.
4. So far as the second question is concerned, the learned advocate Mr. P.V. Nanavati, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1735 in support of his submission, but this decision of the Supreme Court is not of any assistance in the present case because the contention in this regard has not been taken up in the written statement before the Tribunal and secondly because neither the policy nor a copy thereof has been produced to show that there was a breach of the terms of the policy as contended in this appeal.
5. The discussion made above will go to show that there is no substance in either of the contentions raised by Mr. Nanavati before us and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Application No. 31 of 1977 is required to be confirmed and the appeal is required to be dismissed.
6. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, looking to the facts of the case.