KURIAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of an autorickshaw. He transferred the same to the 2nd respondent and the registration of the autorickshaw was also transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent with effect from 4.5.1995. On 16.7.1995, the autorickshaw was involved in an accident, in which one Sri. M.K. Raveendran was injured. The said Sri. M.K. Raveendran filed O.P (MV) No. 33/1996 before the MACT, Muvattupuzha, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that O.P, both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent were impleaded as respondents apart from the 1st respondent insurance company with whom the petitioner had insured the vehicle when he was the owner of the vehicle, the period of which insurance spilled over beyond the date of the accident. Neither the petitioner nor the the 2nd respondent took the trouble to intimate the 1st respondent about the transfer of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent did not bother to insure the vehicle against third party risk, although the same was mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the award, the Tribunal came to the finding that the said Sri. M.K. Raveendran is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal passed an award against all the respondents directing payment of compensation to the injured. The Insurance Company challenged that award in M.F.A.No. 459/1999 disclaiming liability to pay the award amount, on the ground that the driver did not have a valid licence at the time of the accident, in which a Division Bench of this Court passed Ext. P2 judgment, which reads thus :

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner, admittedly, was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Therefore, by virtue of the deeming provision in Sec. 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance of the vehicle also stands transferred to the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore only the registered owner can be made liable to make good the compensation amount to the Insurance Company on account of the violation of the policy condition.

(3.) Both the Insurance Company and the 2nd respondent support Ext. P4. According to them, Sec. 157 has been enacted only to protect the interest of the third party and not the owner of the vehicle or the insured. According to them, Sec. 157 can be invoked only for the benefit of the third party and no right emanates from it in favour of the registered owner or the insured as per the insurance policy. The 2nd respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 65 for the proposition that the legal fiction under Sec. 157 is limited to third party risks and the transferee of the vehicle is not a third party qua the vehicle.