SHANTI PARSHAD SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the owner of truck bearing registration No. HRR 8839 from an award dated November 25, 1982, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that a claim application under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was filed by the claimant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 alleging that their son, Amrit Lal, aged about 21 years, was going on a scooter bearing registration No. DEN 4665. He was sitting on the pillion while the scooter was being driven by Dhanmosh Malik. They were coming from the side of old Faridabad and were going towards Neelam Chowk, N. I. T. , Faridabad. The scooter met with an accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRR 8839 by Nanda, respondent No. 2. As a result of the accident, Amrit Lal received extensive injuries and was crushed to death at the spot. The deceased was working as a subcontractor and was earning Rs. 1,000 per month. The claim was opposed by the appellant and respondent No. 2, i. e. , the owner and the driver of the truck. They denied in the written statement that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. Instead they pleaded that it was due to the negligence of the scooter driver that the accident had taken place. It was further contended that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) and, as such, they were not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) THE National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) filed a separate written statement wherein besides raising some preliminary objections, it was denied that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded that the truck in question was sold by the original insured owner to the appellant prior to the date of accident but the policy was not transferred in his name. The appellant in fact got the policy transferred in his name only on March 16, 1981, while the accident took place on March 14, 1981. It was thus pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not liable to pay any compensation as there was no policy in operation on the date of the accident.