ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HOMI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an insurers appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2003 rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dimapur in MAC Case No.37 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs.5,23,800/- in favour of the claimant (wife of the deceased) against the opposite parties No.3 and 4, insurer of the vehicle directing the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dariaganaj, New Delhi-2, through its Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Dimapur, Nagaland to pay the award to the claimant within 30(thirty) days from the issue of the order, failing to comply with, another 9% interest shall be awarded from the date of filing the claim petition till payment.

(2.) THE facts are very short. THE husband of the claimant went to Delhi with one Sri Paban Boro (driver) sometime in the month of January, 1993. On 19.1.1993, the claimants husband purchased a used Maruti Car bearing registration No.DAG-4351 from one Shri Ashok Aroroa on 24.1.1993. While claimants husband was coming in the said MAC Appeal No.146 of 2003 page 2 of 12 Maruti Car driven by Sri Paban Boro towards Nagaland, on reaching Lucknow the said Maruti Car met with an accident and the claimants husband received serious injuries and was admitted in the Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Lucknow. He succumbed to his injuries on 28.1.93. At the time of his death, the deceased was serving under the Government of Nagaland as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Kohima in Nagaland drawing salary of Rs.4,700/- per month. THE wife of the deceased/ present respondent No.1 filed petition claiming Rs.6,71,000/- in total before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nagaland, Dimapur (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Tribunal) u/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ,,the M.V.Act, which was registered as MAC Case No.37 of 1998. THE insurer as opposite parties contested the claim case by filing written statement denying the liability to pay compensation to the claimant mainly on the ground that the policy is a 3rd party policy meant for indemnifying the loss or damage of the 3rd party within the meaning of MV Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) AS regards the issue No.2 it is an admitted position that the Maruti Car was purchased from one Sri AShok Arora of Delhi on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1 lac on 19.1.2003, but the ownership of the said vehicle was not transferred to late Dhurba Rai who purchased the vehicle. It is also an admitted position that till the alleged motor accident took place on 24.1.1993, the said AShok Arora was not a registered owner of the said accident vehicle. There was, therefore no subsisting contract between late Dhurba Rai and the opposite parties No.3 and 4(insurers). The subsisting contract, in fact, existed, between the registered owner Sri AShok Arora and opposite parties No.3 and 4. No documentary evidence has been found to prove that the ownership of the aforesaid Maruti Car has been transferred to the deceased as required under the M.V.Act.