TULASI SAHUKAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of owner-appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi in MAC No. 3/2001/125/99 (GDC) directing the owner of the offending vehicle a bus bearing registration No. OR07-C-0099 to pay to the claimants-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 compensation amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) with interest at the rate of 8 per cent from 1.10.2002, i.e., the date of appearance of the appellant with cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) on account of death of deceased Sakuda Mandal in an accident involving the offending vehicle. On consent, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the state of admission.

(2.) The accident took place on 28.6.1997. Initially the claimants filed claim application against appellant's husband Krushna Chandra Sahukar as the owner of the offending vehicle. It was pleaded that appellant's husband was insured in respect of the offending vehicle for the period from 7.1.1997 to 28.2.1998 by respondent No. 1-New India Assurance Company. Subsequently, appellant's husband having died on 18.3.1997, the appellant was arrayed in the claim proceeding as the owner of the offending vehicle. Appellant filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation arising out of use of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company filed written statement denying its liability. In order to substantiate the claim, appellant examined two witnesses and relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 5. No oral evidence was adduced either by the owner of the offending vehicle or by the Insurance Company. However, documents marked Ext. 'A' series were admitted to on behalf of the owner and Ext. 'B' series were admitted to on behalf of the Insurance Company. Upon consideration of materials on record learned Tribunal held that the owner is liable to pay compensation.

(3.) In assailing the impugned judgment it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per Section 50(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'M.V. Act') the appellant got the ownership of the offending vehicle transferred in her favour by the registering authority on 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insured during the period of accident. On the basis of such factual submissions it was contended that in view of Section 157 of the M.V. Act, insurance policy issued in favour of appellant's husband has to be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the appellant. It was further argued that the policy issued to appellant's deceased-husband covered the period of accident and the insurance policy was never cancelled by the Insurance Company. Therefore, third party benefits contemplated under the M.V. Act cannot be defeated due to delay, if any, in transfer of the ownership of the offending vehicle in the name of the appellant as the liability of the Insurance Company towards the third party is not contractual but is statutory. In support of his contentions learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon decisions of our High Court in Hindustan General Ins. Society Ltd. v. Kausalya Rani Das and Anr., 1972 ACJ 13 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors.,1998 1 TAC 615.