JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. These are four connected appeals and were heard together and are being disposed by a common judgment,
2. Three claim petitions being M.V. Claim No. 83 of 1974 Jagat Narain Nigam v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal and Ors., M.V. Claim No. 84 of 1974: Narendra Kumar v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal and Ors. and M.V. Claim No. 85 of 1974: Union of India v. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal and Ors. were filed and they were tried together. All these claim petitions arose on account of an accident which took place on 25th of April, 1974 at about 6.30 P.M. near village Paurhi at a distance of about 28 kilometers from Mathura. Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Narendra Kumar, Excise Inspector received serious injuries and Jeep No. U.P.C. 7307 belonging to the Central Excise Department of Government of India was damaged. In Claim Petition Nos. 83 and 84 of 1974 damages were claimed for bodily injuries received by the petitioners while in claim petition No. 85 of 1974 the damages for damage caused to the government vehicle as a result of accident was claimed. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal who was respondent No. 1 in all the above three claim petitions was the owner of Jeep No. U.S.Q. 3919 which caused accident in question. The said Jeep was coming from Agra side in a zigzag mariner and was being driven rashly and negligently as pleaded by the petitioners of the claim petitions and also found by the Tribunal. The said Jeep dashed against the Jeep No. U.P.C. 7307 in which the claimants were traveling. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of these appeals to notice the other facts in as much as only two questions, one common in all the appeals and another relating to the I enhancement of compensation involved in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 have been mooted by the learned Counsel for the parties. The case of Gauri Shanker Paliwal before the Tribunal was that he was not owner of Jeep U.S.Q 3919 on the date on which the accident took place. The said vehicle was owned by M/s. Chandmal and Ramesh Chand of District Mainpuri on the date of accident. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company namely National Insurance Company and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. It was obtained on 14th of February, 1974 in the name of Chandmal and Ramesh Chand for a period of one year. The said Jeep was transferred by Chandmal to Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar. It was subsequently sold by the said three owners to Gauri Shankar Paliwal who is the appellant in the three appeals and was respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions prior to 21st of March, 1974.
3. Number of issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal. Issue No. 3 was to the effect - whether Insurance Company, the respondent No. 2 is not liable as alleged in para 17 of the written statement. The contention of the Insurance Company was that on the date of the accident, the present appellant namely Gauri Shanker Paliwal was not insured as the Jeep had been transferred to Gauri Shanker Paliwal prior to the date of the accident. In other words, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the insured persons were Chandmal, Ramesh Chandra and since they ceased to be owner prior to the date of accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the subsequent owner namely Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal. The Tribunal by its common judgment dated 9th of November, 1977 allowed all three claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to Shri J.N. Nigam, Rs. 5,000/- to Shri N.K. Khanna and Rs. 2000/- to the Union of India, with costs. However, it has exempted the Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amounts and dismissed the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and award the present appeals have been filed.
4. Although in memo of appeal number of grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, but during the course of argument only the following two questions were argued:
1. The Insurance Company will be liable to indemnify the subsequent transferee namely Shri Gauri Shankar Paliwal irrespective of the fact that the insured vehicle stood transferred prior to the date of the accident to Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal. In other words, it was submitted that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the damages to the claimants as the accident took place during the currency of the insurance policy irrespective of the fact that the vehicle in question stood transferred by the registered owners to Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal, who is the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. This point is common in all the appeals.
2. The damages awarded to Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, appellant in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 is inadequate. The Tribunal should have awarded damages to the tune of Rs. l, 25,000/- as claimed in the claim petition and has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. l Lakh as damages.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Taking the first point first, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident with the respondent No. l. The accident took place on 25th of April, 1974. The Insurance Policy was obtained by Chandmal and Ramesh Chand on 14th of February, 1974 for a period of one year. It has been found by the Tribunal that Gauri Shanker Paliwal had become owner of the Jeep sometime prior to 31st of March, 1974 and was, therefore, owner of the vehicle in question on the date of the accident and that Ramesh Chand, Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar had ceased to be its owner, vide para 25 of the judgment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle as well as for the claimants is that in view of Sections 103 A, 94 and Section 95 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act 1939, Insurance Company would continue to be liable to indemnify transferee of the vehicle in respect of an accident caused by an insured vehicle irrespective of the fact that the ownership of the vehicle has been changed. To put it differently, it was submitted that under the scheme of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the insurance is for the benefit of a third party i.e. a person who is not a party to the agreement of insurance but is its beneficiary. The finding recorded otherwise by the Tribunal is legally incorrect and cannot be sustained in view of the various authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court.
6. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid finding in the present appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sheela Rani (Smt) and Ors. (, the view of the court below is not in consonance of the provisions one scheme of the Motor vehicles Act 1939. In this case the Supreme Court has approved the ratio of Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima AIR 1986 AP 62. wherein it was held that on perusal of Section 94, it is clear that the statute intended to give protection to a third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damages to their property while using the vehicle in a public place, Hence the insurance of the vehicle, under Section 94 read with Section 95 is made compulsory. Those two provisions do not extend the compulsory insurance to the vehicle or to the owner. In fact these two provisions made exception to protect the life or limb of the driver of the vehicle or the passenger in the vehicle except public service vehicle. Thus, it is seen the compulsory insurance is for the benefit of third parties. Hence, it is clear that the insurance policy covering three kinds of risks i.e. person (owner), property (vehicles) and third parties is clearly in the nature of composite one. The public liability (third party liability) alone is compulsory. While considering whether the transfer of the vehicle would put an end to the policy, we must see whether such a composite policy will lapse putting an end to all the three kinds of risks undertaken by the insurance company.
7. The aforesaid dictum as laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court has been approved by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sheela Rani and Ors. (supra).
8. In G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , the Apex Court reiterated the above legal position and observed as follows:
In other words a victim or legal representative of the victim can not be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee.
9. Further in para 13 of the report it has been clarified that both under the old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and under the New Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It has been observed that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit under the new Act. The contrary view taken by other High Courts was not approved by the Apex Court.
10. In a recent judgment, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh and Ors. . the Apex Court has noticed all its previous judgments on the point and concluded that the liability of insurer does not cease even if the owner or the purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the Insurance Company, as the purpose of the Legislation was to protect the rights and interest of third party. In view of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, it is crystal clear that the contrary view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal can not be sustained.
11. It is also useful and instructive to notice the observation of the Apex Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pssumal Dhannamal Aswani A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1736 with regard to the nature of third party insurance policy made with reference to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which reads as follows:
12. Chapter VIII of the Act, it appears from the heading, makes provision for insurance of the vehicle against third-party risks, that is to say, its provisions ensure that third parties who suffer on account of the user of the motor vehicle would be able to get damages for injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages for injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages will no be dependent on the financial condition of the driver of the vehicle whose user led to the causing of the injuries. The provisions have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure this object of the enactment.
21. The Act contemplates the possibility of the policy of insurance undertaking liability to third parties providing such a contract between the insurer and the insured, that is, the person who effected the policy, as would make the company entitled to recover the whole or part of the amount it has paid to the third party from the insured. The insurer thus Acts as security for the third party with respect to its realising damages for the injuries suffered, but vis- is the insured, the company does not undertake that liability or undertakes it to a limited extent. It is in view of such a possibility that various conditions are laid down in the policy. Such conditions, however, are effective only between the insured and the company, and have to be ignored when considering the liability of the company to third parties....
22. Thus the contract between the insured and the company may not provide for all the liabilities which the company has to undertake v. is the third parties, in view of the provisions of the Act. We are of opinion that one the company had undertaken liability to third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third parties right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy....
12. In view of the above discussion, the judgment and award of the court below exonerating the Insurance Company to indemnify the appellant, owner of the vehicle (Gaurishankar paliwal) cannot be sustained. The finding on this issue recorded by the Tribunal is reversed and it is held that the Insurance Company namely National Insurance Company shall be liable to indemnify the transferee of the vehicle namely Gaurishanker Paliwal and the said Insurance Company shall pay the same as awarded under the award to the claimants, in all the Motor Vehicle Claim Petitions ; being Claim Petition No. 83 of 1974, 84 of 1974 and 85 of 1974.
13. Now I take up the second point involved in the First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 filed by Shri Jagat Narain Nigam. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh as damages as against the claim of Rs. 1,25,000/-, initially claimed in the claim petition but which was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- in evidence. The claimant being dissatisfied for not awarding a further sum of Rs. 25,000/-, has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental shock, Rs. 50,000/- on account of physical sufferings and Rs. 50,000/- on account of permanent disability and loss of life of pleasure. Medical bills worth Rs. 20,180/- were filed to prove medical expenses for his treatment. He has also furnished the details of the expenditure in his statement. Out of the aforesaid sum, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was disallowed by the Tribunal. The said sum was claimed on the allegation that the claimant had spent Rs. 1,000/- for sending his daughter to Kanpur who was horrified by the disfigurement of his face, to keep her away. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was claimed allegedly spent over his relatives and friends who came to see him during his treatment On the facts as found by the Tribunal, I find that it was legally justified to disallow the aforesaid claims as these expenses were remotely connected with the accident The Tribunal is right in observing that in Indian life style it is normal feature to visit relatives and friends who had suffered accident. Therefore, no fault can be found on the above score in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal after discussing the nature of injuries received by the appellant and the treatment given to him allowed Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental physical sufferings etc. and Rs. 15,000/- for medical treatment and Rs. 45,000/- for expenses over the driver of the car. A sum of Rs. 45,000/- was awarded for expenses to engage a driver as the appellant has become incapable of driving motorcar permanently. A sum of Rs. 200/- per month was claimed as salary of driver to engage for a period of 27 years or so, which comes to Rs. 64,800/-. It was allowed at Rs. 45,000/- taking the monthly salary of a car driver as Rs. 150/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal calculated that the claimant appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in all and it made deduction of Rs. 10,000/- on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. The deduction of Rs. 10,000/- made by the Tribunal, in the facts of the case cannot be said to be unjustified. The Salary to a car driver is payable per month and as per finding of the Tribunal the claimant would be incurring an expenditure at Rs. 150/- per month as against lump sum payment of Rs. 45,000/- under this head. Therefore, I find that the order of the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as damages for the accident which took place on 25th of April, 1974 is quite reasonable and cannot be said inadequate. There is no merit on point No. 2 formulated above in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978.
14. In the result First Appeal From Order No. 16 of 1978, 44 of 1978 and 45 of 1978 are allowed with costs.
15. It is held that the respondent No. l namely National Insurance Company is liable to pay the damages to the claimants in Motor Vehicle Claim No. 82 of 1974, 84 of 1974 and 85 of 1974 decided on 9th of November, 1977, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of compensation petition till the date of, payment of amount decreed. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount has been recovered by the claim petitioners from the appellant Shri Gaurishankar Paliwal, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of payment made by the appellant to the claimant till the date of actual recovery of the amount from the Insurance Company along with the interest amount, if any, paid to the claimants.
16. The First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 is allowed in part to the extent Indicated above and it is held that the claimant appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount, if any, already recovered from the Insurance Company along with the interest. Relief for further enhancement of the compensation amount is rejected. No order as to costs.