V. SUDHARANI AND ORS. Vs. AMSARPASHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two appeals are arising out of a common road traffic accident and a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together, admitted and disposed of finally by this common judgment.

(2.) IT is a case of death of one Sri. S.M. Govindaraju in a road traffic accident occurred on 10.2.2006. His wife, parents and minor children filed a claim petition in MVC 5631/2007 before MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, from the respondents.

(3.) SMT . Harini Shivananda, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer submits, first respondent has sold the vehicle in question in favour of deceased Govindaraju within one week from the date of obtaining policy in his name as evident from Exs. R8 and R9 and also supported by oral evidence of first respondent examined as RW -1 and as on the date of accident deceased was in possession of the vehicle as owner as defined under Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the Insurer of vehicle is not liable to indemnify the deceased who travelled in the vehicle as owner at the time of accident and pay compensation to the claimants against third party liability. She submits in view of payment of premium of Rs. 200/ - against P.A. Coverage their liability may be restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/ - under P.A. Coverage (Personnel Accident Claim). The Tribunal, without considering this material aspect of the matter has committed an error in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company by directing it to deposit the compensation amount. In support of her submission, she relied upon a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Padmadevi and others v. Gurbakshsingh and others reported in : AIR 1973 Rajasthan Page 317.