YASEEN FATIMA Vs. RANGANAYAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal by the seventh respondent in O.P. No. 72 of 1974 is directed against the award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief facts are these : One Mir Haseeruddin Hussain died in a vehicle accident on 11/10/1973, in Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. Naseeruddin Hussains wife filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. Among the respondents is the appellant who figured as seventh respondent. The seventh respondent had taken possession of the lorry A.D.T. 263 under an agreement of sale from respondent No. 10 herein. His defence was that since there was no valid transfer of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he was in no way liable to pay compensation. The agreement under which he took possession of the vehicle is dated 14/03/1973. The entire price for the vehicle was paid by him before the date of the accident. After the date of the accident, the transport authority transferred the vehicle in the name of the appellant by making the necessary endorsements. It is because the transfer of the vehicle in his name was effected after the date of the accident, that he contended that he was not the real owner of the vehicle and as such his liability is not attracted. The Tribunal rejected that contention and held that as he was in possession of the vehicle and also paid consideration thereof, he cannot escape the liability. The Tribunal did not grant any decree against the insurance company but made this appellant alone liable for the compensation of Rs. 32,000 which it awarded.

(3.) Mr. Jagannatha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before us raised the defence under section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, the Insurance Company can escape its liability only if it can raise its defence under any one of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 96. He, therefore, contended that it is the insurance company and respondent No. 10 that are liable under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel invited our attention to two decisions of this court in Kanakalakshmi v. R. V. Subba Rao [1972] 1 APLJ 249 and Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama [1975] 1 APLJ 331; [1976] ACJ 320; AIR 1976 AP 171 to show that conflicting views have been expressed by the learned judges in those two decisions.