THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1251 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006 in O.P.No.301 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty-Four Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.00% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondents to deposit the amount.
3. The respondents/claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for the death of the deceased in the road accident. The appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal disputing the liability.
4. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
5. The facts of the case are that one Male Prasadh died in a Motor accident which occurred on 30.03.2003 involving a lorry bearing No. AET - 1414. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a 2 SKS,J MACMA.No.1251_2008 Motor Cycle Mechanic under one K.Enna Reddy at Shadnagar. On 30.03.2003, at about 04:30 p.m., he has repaired TVS Max 100 bearing No. AP 22 F 1537 and went on trial of the same at Pargi - Shadnagar road while he was passing in the left side near Electricity Office, the offending lorry came from Pargi side in a high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Respondents/claimants filed O.P. against the appellant/Insurance Company.
7. The respondents therein filed counters denying the allegations and further pleaded that owner of the offending lorry is one Nadar Bejani as per the records. But the petition is filed against respondent No.1-Narasimhulu. The said Nadar Bejani was not registered owner at the time of issuing policy and therefore, he had no insurable interest at all. Therefore, there is no contract between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. As such, they are not liable to pay the compensation.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, decreed the O.P. and granted Rs.1,64,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal also discussed about the contentions raised by the Insurance Company that on the date of accident, the policy was not in the name of the owner of the vehicle and relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rikhi Ram Vs. Sukhrania 1 ", wherein it was held that the liability of the Insurance Company would not cease as far as the third party 2003 ACJ 534 (SC) 1 3 SKS,J MACMA.No.1251_2008 is concerned. When the vehicle was transferred, no intimation was given to the Insurance Company, however, the Insurance Company could recover the amount paid from the insured or from the transferee of the vehicle.
9. The Tribunal also relied on the Judgment in "Madhineni Kondaiah vs. Yaseen Fatima 2 " of High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein it is observed that the public liability to notify the transfer and securing No Objection Certificate under Section 1 read with Section 94 of the Act, 1939 would make the original owner retain the insurable interest, in that case, it was not proprietary interest but the public liability, not to run the vehicle or cause or allow any person to run the vehicle without insurance and also to notify the transfer of such vehicle to the registering authority or such transfer that so long as such obligations, notwithstanding the cessation of proprietary interest the insurable interest which is the foundation for the continuance of the operation of the policy stands.
10. The Tribunal also relied on the Judgment of "G. Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd" held that the view expressed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is preferable to the Delhi High Court view (Delhi High Court contrary views on that aspect) since view expressed by the A.P. High Court promotes the object of the legislature in protecting the third party interest.
11. Making his submission, on the same aspect, the claimants placed his reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between 1986 ACJ 1 (A.P) 2 4 SKS,J MACMA.No.1251_2008 United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others 3 wherein the Court at para 12 of the order held as follows:
"12. In Rikhi Ram vs. Sukhrania a bench of three learned Judges of this Court had occasion to consider Section 103-A of the 1939 Act. This Court reaffirmed the decision in G. Govindan 4 case and added that the liability of an insurer does not cease even if the owner or purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the Insurance Company, as the purpose of the legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party."
11. In the light of the legal position, it cannot be said that the liability of Respondent No.2 has extinguished due to detection of discrepancy in question with reference to insurable interest of respondent No.1. If this discrepancy is considered as fatal, respondent No.2 is entitled to proceed against respondent No.1 and recover compensation paid to the petitioners who are third parties to the policy in question.
12. The only contention of the Insurance Company is that on the date of accident, there is no contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. As such, they are not liable to pay the compensation. Whereas, in view of the observation of the Apex Court, the transfer of policy is not necessary if there is a policy existing on the date of accident in the name of crime vehicle. It is sufficient to be liable to the Insurance Company. Therefore, there are no infirmities in the Judgment of the Tribunal and there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006 in O.P.No.301 of 2003 passed by the Motor 3 (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 404 4 (1999) 3 SCC 754:1999 SCC (Cri) 483 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.1251_2008 Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J DATE: 15.11.2023 SAI