G GOVINDAN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has arisen for our consideration in this appeal.

(2.) The question is 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 was made/given.

(3.) We find from the case law cited before us at the bar that there are conflicting views among the High Courts on this issue. Three different High Courts' Full Bench judgments were brought to our notice. The High Courts of Delhi (supra) and Karnataka (supra) had answered the issue in the affirmative while the High Court of Andhra Pradesh supra) (all Full Bench judgments) had answered the issue in the negative. Brief facts are the following:- The appellant herein had purchased the motor vehicle (bus) from the fourth respondent On 15-8-74. However, neither the appellant (transferee) nor the fourth respondent (transferor) intimated the sale transaction to the first respondent-insurer as required under Section 103-A of the Act. Nevertheless, the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'claims Tribunal') was to the effect that the insurer knew about the transfer. The accident, which gave rise to the claim for compensation by the respondents 2 and 3, took place on 18-5-75. It is the finding of the Claims Tribunal that even after the date of the accident and knowing that the fourth respondent had sold the bus to the appellant, the insurer received the premium for subsequent periods, namely. 18-11-75 to 17-11-76, 30-11-76 to 29-11-77 and from 30-11-77 to 29-11-78. This finding of the Claims Tribunal was not disturbed by the High Court while deciding the appeal against the order of the Claims Tribunal.