PATAN LAL Vs. SUKHRANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Kanpur), dated November 13, 1976.

(2.) The accident in question occurred on May 7, 1972, around 9.00 a.m. Chhotey Lal, the husband of respondent No. 1, was proceeding on a bicycle on the left side of the road. The allegations are that he was dashed by truck No. UPC 5729 belonging to appellant No. 1 and driven by appellant No. 2. This happened on the Kanpur-Hamirpur road near octroi post, village Paharhpur, Due to the impact, Chhotey Lal fell on the ground and died almost instantaneously on account of the injuries sustained. The claimant is the widow of Chhotey Lal aforesaid. She laid claim to a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by appellant No, 2. The deceased was employed as a fitter in Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, and was about to retire after two years and three months. His salary was found to be Rs. 300 per month and it was found further that he was able to earn Rs. 100 per month in addition by doing private work beyond mill hours. The vehicle in question had not been insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2, subsequent to the transfer thereof in favour of appellant No. 1. In the circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 only as compensation to the widow and the two sons of Chhotey Lal, the deceased. It was specified that the amount shall be recovered from the owner of the truck and the driver in question. Aggrieved, the owner of the truck and the driver have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Shri S. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer from liability. The submission made is that the truck in question being insured, appellant No. 1 as transferee thereof is entitled to the benefit of insurance though subsequent to the transfer of the vehicle, there was no insurance made or certificate of insurance transferred in the appellant's favour. The argument is clearly unsustainable both on the statutory provisions and authorities. Section 94, Motor Vehicles Act, envisages that there be in force a policy of insurance in relation to the use of the vehicle by " that person or that other person " who uses or allows any other person to use a vehicle. In view of Section 95, in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter VIII, a policy of insurance must insure " the person or classes of persons specified in the policy " against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person, vide Section 95(1)(b)(i). A policy is of no effect unless there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance--Section 95(4). The duty of the insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks arises under Section 96(1). Provision for transfer of certificate of insurance is contained in Section 103A of the Act. The transferee who is a third party to the contract cannot secure any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a novation, i.e., the insurance company, the transferor of the vehicle and the transferee, must agree that the policy be assigned to the transferee so that the benefit derivable under the policy can be secured by the transferee, vide Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Roy [1972] ACJ 314 (Delhi), Smt. Gulab Rai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder [1975] ACJ 100 (Bom), A. S. Govind Singh v. Kailasam [1975] ACJ 215 (Mad). Reference is apposite also to the recent decision in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima [1986] 60 Comp Cas 762; AIR 1986 AP 62. Appellant No. 1 having admittedly purchased the truck from K. S. Bajpai before the accident, but there being no transfer made of the insurance certificate or insurance in relation to the appellant, the liability of the insurance company does not arise.