ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Coimbatore in M.C.O.P. No.200 of 1981. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants M.C.O.P. No.200 of 1981. The sixth respondent and the seventh respondents herein who the owner and driver respectively of the Vehicle involved in the accident, were respondents and 2 in M.C.O.P. No.200 of 1981 and the appellant-insurance company was the respondent therein. Respondents 1 to 5 filed M.C.O.P. No.200 of 1981, under Sec.110 the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against respondents 6 and the appellant herein claiming payment of compensation in a sum of one lakh of rupees respect of the death of one Purushothaman, the husband of the first respondent, son second respondent and father of minor respondents 3 to 5 in a motor accident that place on 6.3.1980 at about 7 p.m. on the Coimbatore Sathy Road, opposite to Velan Theatre. According to the case of respondents 1 to 5 deceased Purushothaman, at the time accident, was proceeding from the east to West on cycle keeping to the left side of the and his younger brother Balakrishnan was also proceeding on another cycle. At that according to the case of respondents 1 to 5, the lorry bearing registration No.TNY belonging to the sixth respondent and driven rashly and negligently by the respondent came from east to west and dashed against Purushothaman and hit him lorry ran over the cyclist crushing his head and resulting in his instantaneous death. deceased, according to respondents 1 to 5 was aged about 32 years at the time of his and was working in Gopalakrishna Mills, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, drawing a salary of per month, besides an annual bonus of Rs.2,000 claiming that deceased Purushothaman hale and healthy and he would have lived for another 40 years and also worked in the till the completion of 58 years, but for the accident, respondents 1 to 5 prayed compensation in a sum of one lakh of rupees should be awarded to them.

(2.) THE seventh respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In his counter, the respondent put forward the plea that the ownership of the lorry bearing registration 4629, which was involved in the accident, had been transferred to the seventh respondent as far back as 5.10.1979 and no liability for compensation in respect of the accident took place on 6.3.1980 could be fastened on him. It was also the further plea of the respondent that deceased Purushothaman lost his balance while riding his cycle account of that, the accident had taken place and he had thus contributed to the THE sixth respondent also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed respondents 1 to 5 was excessive. In its first counter, the appellant-insurance resisted the claim of respondents 1 to 5 contending that the vehicle bearing registration No.TNY 4629 was not insured with it. In its additional counter the appellant pleaded sixth respondent had sold the lorry TNY 4629 to the seventh respondent on 5.10.1979, prior to the accident that took place on 6.3.1980, and the transfer was not intimated insurance company either by the sixth respondent or even by the seventh respondent on the date of the accident, the sixth respondent did not have any insurable interest vehicle which was involved in the accident so as to make the appellant liable therefor. appellant also put forward the plea that the policy issued by it in favour of the respondent covering the vehicle in question was a personal contract of indemnity, lapsed upon the transfer of the lorry by the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent and the seventh respondent alone would be liable to answer the claim for compensation made respondents 1 to 5.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the sixth respondent had sold delivered possession of the lorry TNY 4629 to the seventh respondent on 5.10.1979, prior to the accident that took place on 6.3.1980, and the transfer of the vehicle had been intimated to the appellant and as a result thereof, on transfer of the vehicle, the issued by the appellant-insurance company under Ex.B-1 lapsed and no liability for payment of compensation could be fixed on the appellant-insurance company. LEARNED counsel submitted that the sale of the lorry by the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent governed by the provisions of sale of Goods Act and the sale was completed the delivery of possession of the lorry was effected and inasmuch as the lorry was sold delivered by the sixth respondent to the seventh respondent on 5.10.1979 itself, the lapsed on that date and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation respect of the accident which had taken place subsequently on 6.3.1980. On the other learned counsel for the contesting respondents attempted to sustain the award Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant-insurance company also by contending that benefit of insurance cover issued by the appellant-insurance company would continue available and that would justify the passing of the award in the manner done Tribunal.