GAURI SHANKER PALIWAL Vs. J N NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. These are four connected appeals and were heard together and are being disposed by a common judgment.

(2.) THREE claim petitions being M. V. Claim No. 83 of 1974, Jagat Narain Nigam v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. , M. V. Claim No. 84 of 1974, Narendra Kumar v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. and M. V. Claim No. 85 of 1974, Union of India v. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. , were filed and they were tried together. All these claim petitions arose on account of an accident which took place on 25th of April, 1974 at about 6. 30 p. m. near village Paurhi at a distance of about 28 kilometers from Mathura. Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Narendra Kumar, Excise Inspector received serious injuries and Jeep No. U. P. C. 7307 belonging to the Central Excise Department of Government of India was damaged. In Claim Petition Nos. 83 and 84 of 1974 damages were claimed for bodily injuries received by the petitioners while in claim petition No. 85 of 1974 the damages for damage caused to the Government vehicle as a result of accident was claimed. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal who was respondent No. 1 in all the above three claim petitions was the owner of Jeep No. U. S. Q. 3919 which caused accident in question. The said Jeep was coming from Agra side in a zigzag manner and was being driven rashly and negligently as pleaded by the petitioners of the claim petitions and also found by the Tribunal. The said Jeep dashed against the Jeep No. U. P. C. 7307 in which the claimants were traveling. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of these appeals to notice the other facts in as much as only two questions, one common in all the appeals and another relating to the enhancement of compensation involved in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 have been mooted by the learned Counsel for the parties. The case of Gauri Shanker Paliwal before the Tribunal was that he was not owner of Jeep U. S. Q 3919 on the date on which the accident took place. The said vehicle was owned by M/s. Chandmal and Ramesh Chand of District Mainpuri on the date of accident. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company namely National Insurance Company and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. It was obtained on 14th of February, 1974 in the name of Chandmal and Ramesh Chand for a period of one year. The said Jeep was transferred by Chandmal to Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar. It was subsequently sold by the said three owners to Gauri Shanker Paliwal who is the appellant in the three appeals and was respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions prior to 21st of March, 1974.

(3.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Taking the first point first, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident with the respondent No. 1. The accident took place on 25th of April, 1974. The Insurance Policy was obtained by Chandmal and Ramesh Chand on 14th of February, 1974 for a period of one year. It has been found by the Tribunal that Gauri Shanker Paliwal had become owner of the Jeep sometime prior to 31st of March, 1974 and was, therefore, owner of the vehicle in question on the date of the accident and that Ramesh Chand, Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar had ceased to be its owner, vide para 25 of the judgment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle as well as for the claimants is that in view of Sections 103-A, 94 and Section 95 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, Insurance Company would continue to be liable to indemnify transferee of the vehicle in respect of an accident caused by an insured vehicle irrespective of the fact that the ownership of the vehicle has been changed. To put it differently, it was submitted that under the scheme of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the insurance is for the benefit of a third party i. e. a person who is not a party to the agreement of insurance but is its beneficiary. The finding recorded otherwise by the Tribunal is legally incorrect and cannot be sustained in view of the various authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court.