UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AISABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tellicherry passed a common order in M". A. C. Nos. 277 and 279 of 1984 dated 17-11-1987. The third respondent Insurer has filed M. F. A. Nos. 316 and 395 of 1988 from the aforesaid common order passed in the two claims. The question that arises for consideration in these two appeals is common. On 16-3-1984, one Jamaluddin was riding on a cycle with a pillion rider from Mavungal to Kanhangad at about 9.30 P. M. One Sheik Ismail was riding on another cycle with a pillion rider. They were going back after the cinema. They were riding on the cycle along the side of the road. When they reached Kizhakkumkara, Jeep KLF 9745, driven by the first respondent, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in an over speed and it knocked down both the cyclists. Both Jamaluddin and Sheik Ismail sustained fatal injuries. Finally, they succumbed to those injuries. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the first respondent, Jeep driver. The second respondent is the owner of the jeep and the third respondent is the insurer. The legal heirs of Jamaluddin and Sheik Ismail filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the first respondent, jeep driver. The second respondent (owner of the jeep) was ex parte. It was further held that the third respondent Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. A sum of Rs. 49,000/- was awarded to the legal heirs of Jamaluddin and a sum of Rs. 65,800/- was awarded to the legal heirs of Sheik Ismail as compensation and the third respondent Insurer was directed to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition with costs. The Insurer (3rd respondent) has come up in appeals.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, supplemental 4th respondent was impleaded which was necessitated in view of the plea by the third respondent Insurer that the jeep KLF 9745 was insured by K.K. Kunhiraman (4th respondent), who was the owner, and the second respondent purchased the vehicle from the said Kunhiraman on 1-3-1984. The third respondent Insurer further stated that on 20-3-1984, on an application by the second respondent, the transfer of the insurance was effected in his name with effect from 20-3-1984. It was stated that the accident occurred on 16-3-1984; on that day there was no valid insurance, and so the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal found that the vehicle belonged to the supplemental 4th respondent, that he insured it with the third respondent, that the 4th respondent transferred the vehicle to the second respondent on 1-3-1984 and the transfer of insurance was effected on 20-3-1984. Ext. B1 certificate issued by the Registration Authority showed that the vehicle was transferred to the second respondent with effect from 1-3-1984. Ext. B3 endorsement, transferring the policy in favour of the second respondent, showed that the transfer of insurance policy was made with effect from 20-3-1984. RW2, an officer of the Insurance Company, admitted that on the date of the accident the original insurance policy was a valid one. The 4th respondent deposed that even on the date of the transfer of the vehicle, the papers were entrusted to the second respondent for transfer of the insurance policy. The Tribunal stated that these papers must have been taken to the Insurance Company and only on the basis of those papers the transfer of the insurance should have been effected in the name of the second respondent. The said papers, which are in the custody of the Insurance Company, were not produced and no explanation was forthcoming for the non production of those papers. Though it was stated that the transfer of the insurance will be effective only from 20-3-1984, it should be deemed that the transfer of the insurance would take effect from the date on which the vehicle was transferred and this is also in accord with the admission of RW2, the Insurance Officer, that the insurance was valid on the date of the accident.

(3.) We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. N. Nandakumara Menon. It was submitted that admittedly the supplemental 4th respondent transferred the vehicle to the second respondent on l-3-1984and the endorsement of transfer of insurance policy in favour of the second respondent was made as per Ext. B3 only with effect from 20-3-1984. The accident in this case having taken place on 16-3-1984, the third respondent Insurer is not liable. It was argued that when the vehicle was transferred to the second respondent on 1-3-1984, the insurance policy lapsed. It became effective only as per Ext. B3 endorsement with effect from 20-3-1984, long after the date of accident, and hence there was no liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.