By way of filing these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 30th November 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar in MAC Petitions vide which the Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petitions filed by the claimants. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that on 26th April 1986 at about 4.45 AM while they were on patrolling duty and were returning from Godavari to Surendranagar in police jeep, their jeep had collided with a truck bearing No.GTX 5070 that was lying on the road near Sudhari plot. It is the case of the claimants that the Driver of the truck had not put on parking light or any parking signal. Due to the impact of the said collision, PSI Narandas and Police Constable Galabhai Dhudabhai received fatal injuries while Head Constable Laghubhai Gambhirsinh Zala received injuries. Heirs and legal representatives as well as injured filed three separate claim petitions while the State Government filed MAC Petition No.424 of 1986 for damage caused to the Jeep.
3. The insurance company of the truck has resisted the claim petition on the ground that truck in question was sold by the insured prior to the date of the accident. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants against which the present appeals are filed.
4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 The truck in question is originally owned by one Masharibhai Rayabhai Khunt and was insured with the appellant insurance company for the period from 12.10.1985 to 11.10.1986. The vehicle was thereafter transferred in the name of new purchaser on 29th March 1986 while the accident took place on 26th April 1986. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 55 of the Motor Vehicles Rules.
6. The question whether the Insurance Policy lapses and consequently the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under section 103A of the Act fell into consideration of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of G.Govindan v. New India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 1999 ACJ 781.
7. The Supreme Court after considering the case law which consisting of conflicting views among the High Courts on this issue wherein the High Courts of Delhi and Karnataka had answered the issue in the affirmative while the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (all Full Bench judgments) had answered the issue in the negative, held as under:-
“10. This Court in the said judgment held that the provisions under the new Act and the old Act are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third party. This Court also recognised the view taken in the separate judgment in Kondaiah's case that the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. In other words, a victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee.
“13. In our opinion that both under the old act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It appears that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit, presumably in view of the conflicting decisions on this aspect among the various High Courts.
“15. As between the two conflicting views of the full bench judgments noticed above, we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case as it advances the object of the Legislature to protect the third party interest. We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. In other words in accord with the well-settled rule of interpretation of statutes we are inclined to hold that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case is preferable to the contrary views taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) even assuming that two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant sections as it promotes the object of the Legislature in protecting the third party (victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the judgment of Karnataka & Delhi High Courts (supra) differing from Andhra Pradesh High Court is not the correct one.”
Thus, on the date of the accident the original owner was not the registered owner. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not to have held the original owner and insurance company liable for satisfying the award. In that view of the matter, the decree passed against Khunt and the appellant – insurance company is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Admittedly, the new owner viz. Amirali Kanjibhai, in his deposition at Exhibit 66 has stated that he is the owner of Truck No.GTX 5070 and Masribhai Khunti was not liable for any consequences subsequent to the date on which he purchased the vehicle. Subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle by said Amirali the vehicle was transferred in the name of the new purchaser in the RTO office on 29.3.1986. A copy of the Registration Certificate is produced on record.
9 In that view of the matter, the decree passed against the original owner as well as the appellant – insurance company is required to be set aside. The new owner of the truck in question is liable to satisfy the award. The amount deposited by the appellant is allowed to be refunded. It will be open for the claimants to recover the amount from the new owner and not from the original owner.
In the result, the appeal as well as Cross Objections are allowed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd