VIMLA DEVI Vs. DAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING different factual matrix in relation to effect and impact of non-intimation by the owner-insured to the insurer at the time of transfer of a motor vehicle as required under Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the resultant liability of the insurance company in such a factual foundation and noticing cleavage of opinion in Nana Bai and Ors. v. Ishaque Khan and Ors. , 1995 ACJ 292, Nagindas and Anr. v. Nasir Ali and Ors. , 1997 ACJ 1093 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shamsuddin and 11 Ors. (M. A. No. 378 of 1989) on one hand and Sabir Hussain v. Maya Bai and Ors. , 1997 ACJ 1258 on the other, a Division Bench of this Court in M. A. No. 446 of 1997 and other connected matters thought it appropriate that the matter required to be decided by a larger Bench. In M. A. No. 192 of 1996 another Division Bench noticing the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jhunnubai and Ors. , 1980 ACJ 127 and further taking note of the fact that there has been a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, AIR 1986 A. P. 62, which has, according to the said Division Bench, received approval of the Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (1996) 1 SCC 221, thought it apposite that the decision rendered in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) required reconsideration. We may hasten to state here that in the case of Madineni Kondaiah (supra) the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court expressed the view that notwithstanding non-transfer of certificate of insurance the liability qua third party subsists in view of the provisions engrafted under Sections 94 and 95 of the Act. In this factual backdrop two sets of references have been placed before us.

(2.) THE core question that requires to be answered is--

(3.) WE may state at the very beginning that what was quite a debatable and interesting question of law at one point of time because of cleavage of opinion of various High Courts, lost some of its importance and labyrinthine mask after the decision in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. (supra) was delivered by the Supreme Court. However, as the point was not directly in issue it was thought appropriate, the controversy should be decided by a larger Bench and, therefore, reference was made in M. A. No. 192 of 1996. It is to be noted here that the Division Bench, which delivered the judgment in the case of Umed Chand Golcha (M. A. No. 192 of 1996) was of the view that in the case of Complete Insulations (P.) Ltd. (supra) the ratio laid down in Kondaiah's case, which clearly stated that non-intimation by transferor to the insurer does not extinguish the rights of the victim of a road accident, a third party, to get compensation from the insurer, was approved.