UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts are that on 23.8.2002 Sukhdev Singh, deceased was going for duty on his scooter bearing No. PB 13-D 5888 from the I.T.I. Chowk, Barnala to Sherpur. Satwinder Singh was following him on his scooter bearing No. RGK 251. When at about 8 p.m. Sukhdev Singh and Satwinder Singh, on different scooters were at some distance from Malwa Cotton Mills, Barnala, near Gaushala on Rajkot-Barnala Road, a truck bearing No. RJ 3-G 5888 came from the side of Sanghera. The truck was being driven by Diwan Singh at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without its lights on and without blowing any horn. The said truck struck against the scooter of Sukhdev Singh. The accident had occurred as Diwan Singh brought the truck on to the wrong side while driving it rashly and negligently. After the accident, driver of the truck, Diwan Singh fled away from the spot with the truck. The accident was witnessed by Satwinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh, who was standing in front of his house. Satwinder Singh had telephoned the Police Station Kotwali, Barnala, from the house of Gurcharan Singh. But, however, when Sukhdev Singh was being shifted to Civil Hospital, Barnala, he succumbed to his injuries near Dhanaula Railway Crossing.

(2.) Legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') claiming compensation on account of death of Sukhdev Singh. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,74,400 in favour of the claimants, Sharanjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation, holding the insurance company (respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal and appellant) to be liable to pay the same vide award dated 3.5.2004, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.

(3.) Mr. M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. He submitted that at the time of alleged accident, Manjit Singh respondent No. 6 was the owner of the offending vehicle and he had not insured the offending vehicle with appellant insurance company and, thus, there was no privity of contract between the appellant and owner of the truck. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to make payment of the compensation. He also pointed out that the vehicle was owned by Mukhtiar Singh. Mukhtiar Singh had got the vehicle insured. Later on, he transferred the same in favour of Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar further transferred the truck in question in favour of Manjit Singh. However, Mukhtiar Singh, transferor and Rakesh Kumar, transferee, have not given any intimation with regard to the transfer as required under section 157 (2) of the Act. He further submitted that the vehicle was further transferred in favour of Manjit Singh, respondent No. 6 by Rakesh Kumar. However, he has also not given any intimation for the transfer of vehicle in his name to the appellant. He also submitted that till the insured gives the intimation with regard to the transfer of vehicle, insurance company is not to indemnify the liability. However, the learned Tribunal has erroneously held appellant liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.