CHANDRAKANT NARSAPPA MANTHALKAR Vs. AWADIBAI AMBADAS SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALBHIM was initially in private service at Bhivandi earning about Rs. 300/ to Rs. 350/ - per month. Subsequently, Balbhim left Bhivandi and came down to Solapur and started working as a coolie near state transport bus stand on the main road at Panjarpol Chowk at Solapur. On December 26, 1982, at about 7.00 p.m. , Balbhim was standing on the road when motor truck bearing registration number 1134 came from the rear and dashed against Balbhim. Balbhim fell down and was crushed under the wheels of the truck and died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Bharat Deokar who was working as a tonga driver and was standing at a distance of about 10ft. from deceased Balbhim. Bharat proceeded to the house of Balbhim and informed the widow and the mother of the death of Balbhim, Police were informed and a panchnama was drawn and statements of the witnesses were recorded,

(2.) THE widow, the minor son and the mother filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 17 of 1983 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur seeking compensation of Rs. 75.000/ -. The motor vehicle was registered in the name of original opponent No, 1 Shivdas and was driven by opponent No. 3 Abdulkadar. Opponent No. 1 appeared in the proceedings and, by written statement, claimed that the vehicle was sold in January 1972 to opponent No. 5 Papa Mujawar. Thereupon opponent No. 5 was joined as party respondent to the proceedings. Opponent No. 5 filed written Statement [Exhibit 53] and claimed that though he had purchased the vehicle from opponent No. 1 and insured it with opponent No. 4 -New India Assurance Company - on January 21, 1981 for a period of two years, he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle in view of agreement dated October 15,1982 entered into with opponent No. 2 Chandrakant. Opponent No. 5 claimed that the truck was sold to opponent No. 2 for consideration of Rs, 30,000/ - and the original documents, i.e., registration certificate, were handed over to opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 2 filed written statement [Exhibit 24] and denied that applicants are the legal representatives of deceased Balbhim. The principal contention raised by opponent No. 2 was that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The driver - opponent No. 3 - did not file any written statement. The insurance company claimed that the vehicle was Insured by opponent No. 5 and after the vehicle was transferred to opponent No. 2, the liability of the insurance company came to an end.

(3.) MR . Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opponent No. 2, submitted that the Tribunal was in error in holding that opponent No. 2 was the owner of the truck at the relevant time. The learned Counsel urged that as long as the transfer was registered in the name of opponent No. 5, it is not permissible to hold opponent No. 2 as the owner of the truck at the relevant time. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel. At Exhibit 103 is a document titled as sale Deed in respect of the truck executed on October 15,1982 and the agreement shows that consideration was Rs. 30.000/ - and opponent No. 2 had paid Rs. 20.000/ - to opponent No. 5. The possession of the truck was delivered alongwith the tax and registration books and the insurance documents. Opponent No. 2 had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/ - on or before February 28, 1983 and thereafter the documents regarding transfer were to be executed. Before payment of the balance amount, the truck was involved in the incident which led to the death of Balbhim. Mr. Shah submits that as long as the transfer documents were not executed, opponent No. 2 cannot be considered as a registered owner of the vehicle and the liability is of opponent No. 5. The submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In the first instance, as held by this Court in the decision reported in 1983 A.C.J. 369 [ Mohd. Abdul Waheed Mohd. Nakim Khan v. Shyam behari Rameshwar Kalvar and Others ], the property in the truck stands transferred to opponent No. 2 in accordance with provisions of Section 20 of Sale of Goods Act. The agreement between opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 5 evidence an unconditional contract for sale of specific goods in a deliverable state. Possession of the truck having been delivered and 2/ 3rd of the consideration having been received by opponent No. 5, it is futile for opponent No. 2 to claim that he was not the owner of the truck on the date of incident. It is also necessary to note that if the contention of opponent No. 2 that unless the transfer is registered, the ownership continues with opponent No. 5 is accepted, then even opponent No. 5 will not be liable. As mentioned hereinabove, initially the truck was purchased by opponent No. 1 and the registration stands in the name of opponent No. 1. Though opponent No. 1 had transferred the truck in favour of opponent No. 5 in year 1972, still the transfer in favour of opponent No. 5 was not registered. In case the contention of opponent No. 2 is accepted, then neither opponent No. 2 nor opponent No. 5 will be responsible. The name of opponent No. 1 was deleted at the behest of the respondents. In our judgment, the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. Mr. Shah then submitted that opponent No. 5 had taken out an insurance policy on January 21, 1981 and the policy was to remain in operation till January 20, 1983. The learned Counsel urged that inspite of the transfer of the truck by opponent No. 5 to opponent No. 2, the policy will not lapse and the liability of the insurance company remains intact. It is not possible to accede to the submission. It is now well settled that on transfer of the vechicle, the policy stands lapsed and the insurance company cannot be held liable.