UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HARGIAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 371 of 1988, filed by United India Insurance Company, F.A.O. No. 269 of 1988, filed by the alleged owner, and also Cross-objections No. 54-CII of 1988, filed by the claimants, as all these arise out of one and the same judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short the Tribunal). For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from F.A.O. No. 371 of 1988. Accident, which took place, on the night intervening 3rd and 4th April, 1986, and death of Sat Narain in that accident are not in dispute.

(2.) Primary dispute is only as to which party is liable to make payment of compensation and how much? As per admitted facts, Sat Narain deceased was driving truck bearing registration No. HRJ 4311 and was going from Hisar to Jind. His truck met with an accident with another truck bearing registration No. HRH 4301, which was being driven by Subash, respondent No. 4 in this appeal. The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence, has come to a conclusion that respondent No. 4 was responsible for causing that accident, during trial his negligence was proved on record. Nothing has been said in that regard by counsel for the parties.

(3.) Originally the offending vehicle No. HRH 4301 was registered in the name of M/s Minaxi Gram Floor Mills, Hisar, of which Karan Pal Gupta, appellant in F.A.O. No. 269 of 1988 was the partner. At the time of accident, admittedly, he had purchased that truck from the Firm but no entry to that effect was made in the registration certificate. Objection was raised by the Insurance Company that as the offending vehicle was transferred not in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no entry was made in the registration certificate and also no intimation was given to the Insurance Company, so it was not liable to pay the compensation amount. It was further contention of the Insurance Company that in view of the transfer of the vehicle, the Insurance policy had lapsed and there was no subsisting contract between the Insurance Company and the transferee of the vehicle, Shri Karan Pal Gupta. That contention was negatived by the Tribunal. Same objection has been raised before this Court also. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and also claimants in Cross-objections refuted the argument s, raised by counsel for the Insurance Company.