PURSHOTTAM NARAYAN MEHTA Vs. MAMATI JAYRAM AMBONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three appeals filed against the common order dated 31/3/1987, passed by the Motor Accident claim Tribunal ( Claim Tribunal), whereby, the appellant-Insurance Company, in first appeal No. 587 and 588 of 1990 i. e. original opponent No. 3 and the appellant in First appeal No. 1063/1987, original opponent NO. 2-owner of the vehicle, have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 64,800/- together with interest at 12 % p. a. from the date of petition till payment of the amount and proportionate cost of the petition. Opponent No. 2 have been directed to pay an amount of rs. 14,800 and opponent No. 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest on the respective amounts.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 1063/1987-opponent NO. 2, basically contended, that in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in ( G. Govindan V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others) (AIR 1999 S. C. 1398) and (Rikhi Ram and another v. Smt. Sukhrania and others ) (AIR 2003 S. C. 1446)based on the provisions of sections 94, 95 and 103a of motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), the Apex Court has made it very clear that so far as, the liability of Insurance company is concerned, it does not cease in absence of an intimation of transfer of vehicle to the insurance company. It is specifically observed that the policy if not transferred in the name of transferee of vehicle, that itself can not be a ground to deny the compensation by the insurer to the victim or the legal representative of the victim. A factum of no initimation or intimation is an interse dispute between the transferor or transferee of the vehicle. The victim or such any heirs of the victim, should not be made to move here and/or there for their respective claims. The fact that the vehicle was admittedly insured, and there was a insurance policy on the date of incident, that itself according to me sufficient to consider the case of the victim to grant such compensation. This is a matter of statutory liability, under the Motor Vehicle Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the owner, opponent No. 2 contended that there was initimation given and therefore, he was not liable to make such payment. The learned Judge, however, after considering the material on the record, clearly gave finding on the issue against opponent No. 2, holding him to be liable, as he failed to prove the service of such intimation of transfer of ownership.