SAHIB SINGH Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is by owner and driver of tractor No. PUC 4763, aggrieved against the award dated 14.3.1985 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal').

(2.) The brief facts of the present appeal are that on 12.3.1982 Sukhvinder Singh, son of Hari Singh died in an accident between his motorcycle No. PUV 764 and the tractor driven by the present appellant No. 1. The learned Tribunal has found that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said appellant. Such finding is not in dispute in the present appeal. However, the learned Tribunal has held that Avtar Singh was original owner of the tractor who had died prior to the date of accident on 12.3.1982 and thus the insurance company cannot be made liable to make the payment of compensation. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this court in Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Harbans Kaurt (1983) 85 PLR 492.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no evidence regarding the date of death of Avtar Singh inasmuch as when the appellant, Sahib Singh appeared as his own witness, he was not cross-examined in respect of the date of death of Avtar Singh. It is contended that the judgment relied upon by learned Tribunal has since been reversed in appeal in a judgment reported as B.B. Bhagwat v. Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., 1994 ACJ 301 (P&H). The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 781 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has followed the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, 1986 ACJ 1 (AP), wherein it has been held that mere passing of title in the vehicle to the transferee will not put an end to third party liability of the insurance company. The Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that even if there is transfer of vehicle, the obligation under section 94 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not cease. Normally, the policy is to the vehicle and has to be run with the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon a judgment in Om Parkash v. Rajbiri, 1997 ACJ 547 (P&H), to contend that once the insurance company has issued the policy, it is liable to indemnify the third party risk.