Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Raj vs Dharmo Rani And Ors. on 31 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990ACJ601
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 831, 854, 884, 885 and 886 of 1987 filed by the claimants. There is no dispute about the accident and the manner in which it has taken place. The claimants' counsel could not raise any meaningful argument for enhancement of compensation. The only dispute is whether the insurance company can be held liable for payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants. In order to appreciate the legal point in issue, it is necessary to state a few facts.
THE FACTS
2. On May 19, 1986, Bhira deceased along with other members of his family, namely, Ram Phal, Jagdish, Pala and Om Parkash, was standing on the bus stand, Sekhupura on Karnal-Assandh Road. They were waiting for a bus for going to village Ranwar where they had to attend a marriage party. The bus service was disturbed on that day as a result of the strike. A truck bearing registration No. RJI 1506 came from the Assandh side. Bhira and other members standing on the roadside signalled it to stop for a lift. The truck driver Mohinder Singh agreed to give them a lift on payment of Rs. 200/-. When the truck reached near village Charao, it went out of control of the driver and overturned in a kacha pond in front of village Charao. Bhira and others received multiple injuries. Bhira, Jagdish, Ram Phal, Harbhajan Singh and Mahlu succumbed to their injuries in the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed applications for compensation under Section 110-A read with Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). The driver, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the owner were made parties to the petitions.
3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on evidence found that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver Mohinder Singh at the relevant time. He also found that Bhira, Ram Phal, Jagdish, Harbhajan Singh and Mahlu died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the ill-fated truck by the driver. He also found that the offending vehicle was owned by Mam Raj, respondent No. 6, in F.A.O. No. 961 of 1987. Mam Raj transferred the ownership by an affidavit dated May 14, 1986 to Baldev Raj, The accident took place on May 19, 1986. The transferee did not notify the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the insurance company. He also did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name. Resultantly the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He also found that the insurance policy, Rxh. R-1, did not permit carriage of passengers on the truck. He allowed compensation to the claimants payable only by driver Mohinder Singh and owner Baldev Raj jointly and severally. Mohinder Singh driver has not challenged the award.
4. The learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle contended that the insurance company is liable for the payment of the compensation amount. The insurer is liable to discharge liability which is covered by the policy of insurance or under the statutory provisions pursuant to which the policy was issued. The learned Tribunal correctly found that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. In the insurance policy, there is a specific provision that passengers cannot be carried in a goods carrier. The case will fall in the exclusion clause under Section 96 (2) (b) (i) of the Act. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable is unassailable.
5. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The ill-fated truck was insured by its original owner with the insurance company. It was transferred by the original owner on May 14, 1986 and the accident took place on May 19, 1986. There is no evidence on record that any intimation was given either by the original owner or by the purchaser to the insurance company that the transfer has taken place and that the insurance policy be transferred in the name of the purchaser. The intimation regarding purchase had to be given by the original owner as provided under Section 103A of the Act. If the intimation had been sent and no response had been received thereto from the insurance company within 15 days, the transfer of the insurance certificate in favour of the transferee would have been effected from the date of the transfer of the vehicle in his favour. The principle underlying the aforesaid provision is that the insurance company cannot be allowed to ward off its liability by simply delaying the transfer of the certificate of insurance in favour of the purchaser of the vehicle. If an accident takes place and liability is incurred by the purchaser during the period between the date of the transfer of the vehicle and the date of the actual transfer of the certificate of insurance by the insurer, the insurer has to discharge it.
6. Baldev Raj, purchaser of the truck, is a stranger to the insurance company. There was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the insurance company.
7. The policy has not been transferred in his name. Till the transfer is effected, the insurance company cannot be held liable. As observed earlier, no meaningful arguments were addressed by the claimants' counsel for enhancement of the compensation. I have gone through the award of the Tribunal on its quantum and am not persuaded to take a contrary view than the one taken by him.
8. For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the purchaser-owner and the claimants are dismissed with no order as to costs.