RAMAHARI PRADHAN Vs. BIJAYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this court while hearing this appeal felt that the following question:

(2.) The appellants filed M.A.C. No. 65 of 1990 (297 of 1988) before the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Southern Division), Berhampur under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 for the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident on 23.10.1988. The Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.3.1992 came to hold that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It further held that the deceased boy was aged about 9 years at the time of the accident and having regard to the facts and circumstances, it was of the view that a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,000 would be the just compensation payable to the appellants. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 8 K. Krishna Murty was the owner of the offending vehicle who had transferred it in favour of respondent No. 1 Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra on 20.4.1988, i.e., prior to the date of accident and as the real owner of the offending vehicle transferred the vehicle, the liability of the insurer to cover third party risk ceased. The Tribunal accordingly absolved the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed this appeal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation as well as absolving the insurance company from its liability.

(3.) The point raised by the learned single Judge came up for consideration recently before the Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 19.99 ACJ 781 (SC). After considering the conflicting opinions of different High Courts on the issue, their Lordships approved the ratio laid down by the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, 1986 ACJ 1 (AP), in which it has been held that non-transfer of policy in the name of the transferee of the vehicle cannot be a ground for denial of compensation by the insurer. In para 15 of the judgment, the Apex Court further clarified that both under the old Act and the new Act, the legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest and what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit. The aforesaid being the legal position, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appellants.