Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.288 of 2000
Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Mau
Respondent :- Chandrabhan Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Misra, A.K.Upadhaya, K.K.Pandey
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Sinha for the appellant.
2. None present for the respondent though the matter is called twice.
3. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 28.2.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh, in M.A.C.P. No.46 of 1991 (Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav and others). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.66,500/- and if they did not deposit the said amount, interest will accrue after 30 days at 12% rate of interest.
4. The facts are not necessary as the ground which has been raised is no longer res integra namely that the original owner of the vehicle, who had got the vehicle insured, was Surya Kumar Singh who had sold the vehicle in question to one Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav prior to the alleged accident and, therefore, under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the liability of the Insurance company, if any, had come an end and the Insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation against any liability of Rajesh Kumar Yadav, the transfree of the vehicle.
5. The submission that the vehicle was not insured by Rajesh Kumar Yadav and that there was no liability on them, the Insurance company was exonerated in one another matter. In this case it is very clear that no such 2 ground was ever raised before the Tribunal. The vehicle being insured is not in dispute. The factum of accident is not in dispute. The insurance cover note though was in the name of Surendra Kumar Singh it was in vogue till the date of accident. In RTO the name of registered owner was Surya Kumar Singh and, therefore, this submission was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of T V Jose Vs. Chacko P M, 2001 LawSuit (SC) 1289, the change of ownership being a comprehensive policy would cover the issue. I am supported in my view Pushpa @ Leela and others Vs. Shakuntala and others, 2011 LawSuit (SC) 131, and hence the appeal will have to fail. Even on facts, nothing is proved before the Tribunal to this effect.
6. A meagre sum of Rs.66,500/- has been awarded in MACP No.46 of 1991 and, therefore, also the appeal on smallness of amount is disposed of.
7. The appeal is dismissed. Interim relief shall stand vacated. If the amount has yet not deposited, the same shall be deposited.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Irshad