ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED 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-Court), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. The sixth and the seventh respondents herein, who are the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident, were respondents 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 and the appellant-Insurance Company was the third respondent therein. Respondents 1 to 5 filed M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondents 6 and 7 and the appellant herein claiming payment of compensation in a sum of one lakh of rupees in respect of the death of one Purushothaman, the husband of the first respondent, son of the second respondent and father of jninor respondents 3 to 5 in a motor accident that took 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 of the accident, was proceeding from east to west on cycle keeping to the left side of the road and his younger brother Balakrishnan was also proceeding on another cycle. At that time, according to the case of respondents 1 to 5, the lorry bearing registration No. TNY 4629 belonging to the sixth respondent and driven rashly and negligently by the seventh respondent came from east to west and dashed against Purushothaman and hit him and the lorry ran over the cyclist crushing his head and resulting in his instantaneous death. The deceased, according to respondents 1 to 5 was aged about 32 years at the time of his death and was working in Gopalakrishana Mills, Ganapaths, Coimbatore, drawing a salary of Rs. 650/- per month, besides an annual bonus of Rs. 2,000/ -. claiming that deceased Purushothaman was hale and healthy and he would have lived for another 40 years and also worked in the Mills till the completion of 58 years, but for the accident responents 1 to 5 prayed that 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 sixth respondent put forward the plea that the ownership of the lorry bearing registration No. TNY 4629, which was involved in the accident, had been transferred to the seventh respondent as far back as 6.10.1979 and no liability for compensation in respect of the accident that took place on 6.3.1980 could be fastened on him. It was also the further plea of the sixth respondent that deceased Purushothaman lost this balance while riding his cycle and on account of that, the accident had taken place and he had thus contributed to the accident. The sixth respondent also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed by respondents 1 to 5 was excessive. In its first, counter, the appellant-Insurance Company 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 at the sixth respondent had sold the lorry TNY 4629 the seventh respondent on 5.10.1979, long prior to the accident that took place on 6.3.1980, and the transfer was not intimated to the Insurance Company either by the sixth respondent or even by the seventh respondent and on the date of the accident, the sixth respondent did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle which was involved in the accident so as to make the appellant liable therefore. The appellant also put forward the plea that the policy issued by it in favour of the sixth respondent covering the vehicle in question was a personal contract of indemnity, which 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 by respondents 1 to 5.

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