LINGACHARI Vs. B KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard learned counsel representing different parties. The principal point that falls for decision in this appeal is the short question as to whether the 1st respondent can be held to have been the registered owner of the motor cycle No. Mex 680 as on 6-9-1985 which is the date of the incident. The learned trial judge has, after consideration of the record come to the conclusion that the vehicle had been transferred some time prior to that date and as a necessary consequence, recorded the finding that by virtue of this transfer, the insurance company was also no longer liable. There is no dispute about the fact that if the vehicle had been in fact transferred, that the liability of the insurance company ceases unless the policy has been transferred to the new owner. Under these circumstances, the application for the award of compensation came to be dismissed even though the learned judge after a consideration of the other issues recorded the finding that normally he would have awarded an amount of Rs. 28,000/- as compensation to the claimant. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) the appellant's learned Advocate has submitted that the finding with regard to the transfer is erroneous and that the record undisputedly indicates that the tribunal ought to have accepted the position that respondent 2 was still the owner of the vehicle as on 6-9-1985 and if this was so, the liability of the insurance company to cover the claim would be automatic. For this purpose, he has relied heavily on the evidence of respondent 2 and he has also relied on the documents that have been produced by him in support of his contention that he had delivered the vehicle to the original respondent 1 on 11-8-1985 i.e., a little over one month prior to the date of the incident. He has also referred to the other documents namely ex. R-2 which is the form No. 29, exs. R-3 and r-4 which are the letters addressed to the insurance company and ex. R-4 letter to r.t.o. 'which have been produced by the respondent. The submission canvassed is that the evidence of this respondent is untrustworthy and when examined particularly in relation to the documents that he has sought to produce that the irresistible conclusion is that the documents produced have been fabricated in Order to set up a plea that a transfer had taken place. As far as the learned Advocate who appears on behalf of respondent 2 is concerned, he submits that the documents speak for themselves and he maintains that his client had in fact parted with the possession of the vehicle and he has sent the requisite intimation to the authorities concerned. It is his case that his liability has come to an end as soon as he has carried out the aforesaid acts and that even if the actual date of transfer of the ownership was 27th i.e., a few days after the incident has taken place, that he cannot still be held liable.

(3.) I need to record that this appeal has been very strongly opposed by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent 3 namely the insurance company. It is his case that it is a requirement under the contract of insurance as also a requirement of law that the liability, if it is to subsist after a transfer, can only do so provided the requisite formalities have been complied with learned counsel points out, and there is little dispute about this position, that on the date when a transfer takes place that the contract between the insurer and the original insured person namely the original owner comes to an end. It is true that the policy can be transferred to the new owner on an application being made and on a prescribed fee being paid. Unless this formality is complied with, the policy cannot stand revived and consequently it is his submission that once the transfer had taken place on 11-8-1985, that the insurance company has been exonerated of the contract. In this context learned counsel places strong reliance on a full bench decision of this court in the case of the National Insurance Company Limited v Mallikarjuna and others , wherein the full bench of this court had occasion to go into the various aspects that accompany the process of transfer and to hold that once the delivery of possession has taken place and the requisite formalities have been completed by the previous owner even if there is some time lag by the r.t.o. in making the necessary transfer in favour of the buyer, that for all intents and purposes in law, the transfer will be complete. We are concerned with the law as laid down by the court in relation to a transfer vis-a-vis the liability of the insurance company and relying on this decision, the learned Advocate submits that the tribunal was fully justified in holding that the transfer had been completed as on 11-8-1985.