- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. These are four connected appeals and were heard together and are being disposed by a common judgment.
(2.) THREE claim petitions being M. V. Claim No. 83 of 1974, Jagat Narain Nigam v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. , M. V. Claim No. 84 of 1974, Narendra Kumar v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. and M. V. Claim No. 85 of 1974, Union of India v. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal & Ors. , were filed and they were tried together. All these claim petitions arose on account of an accident which took place on 25th of April, 1974 at about 6. 30 p. m. near village Paurhi at a distance of about 28 kilometers from Mathura. Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Narendra Kumar, Excise Inspector received serious injuries and Jeep No. U. P. C. 7307 belonging to the Central Excise Department of Government of India was damaged. In Claim Petition Nos. 83 and 84 of 1974 damages were claimed for bodily injuries received by the petitioners while in claim petition No. 85 of 1974 the damages for damage caused to the Government vehicle as a result of accident was claimed. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal who was respondent No. 1 in all the above three claim petitions was the owner of Jeep No. U. S. Q. 3919 which caused accident in question. The said Jeep was coming from Agra side in a zigzag manner and was being driven rashly and negligently as pleaded by the petitioners of the claim petitions and also found by the Tribunal. The said Jeep dashed against the Jeep No. U. P. C. 7307 in which the claimants were traveling. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of these appeals to notice the other facts in as much as only two questions, one common in all the appeals and another relating to the enhancement of compensation involved in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 have been mooted by the learned Counsel for the parties. The case of Gauri Shanker Paliwal before the Tribunal was that he was not owner of Jeep U. S. Q 3919 on the date on which the accident took place. The said vehicle was owned by M/s. Chandmal and Ramesh Chand of District Mainpuri on the date of accident. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company namely National Insurance Company and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. It was obtained on 14th of February, 1974 in the name of Chandmal and Ramesh Chand for a period of one year. The said Jeep was transferred by Chandmal to Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar. It was subsequently sold by the said three owners to Gauri Shanker Paliwal who is the appellant in the three appeals and was respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions prior to 21st of March, 1974. Number of issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal. Issue No. 3 was to the effect - whether Insurance Company, the respondent No. 2 is not liable as alleged in para 17 of the written statement. The contention of the Insurance Company was that on the date of the accident, the present appellant namely Gauri Shanker Paliwal was not insured as the Jeep had been transferred to Gauri Shanker Paliwal prior to the date of the accident. In other words, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the insured persons were Chandmal, Ramesh Chandra and since they ceased to be owner prior to the date of accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the subsequent owner namely Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal. The Tribunal by its common judgment dated 9th of November, 1977 allowed all three claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to Shri J. N. Nigam, Rs. 5,000 to Shri N. K. Khanna and Rs. 2,000 to the Union of India, with costs. However, it has exempted the Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amounts and dismissed the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and award the present appeals have been filed. Although in memo of appeal number of grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, but during the course of argument only the following two questions were argued: (1) The Insurance Company will be liable to indemnify the subsequent transferee namely Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal irrespective of the fact that the insured vehicle stood transferred prior to the date of the accident to Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal. In other words, it was submitted that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the damages to the claimants as the accident took place during the currency of the insurance policy irrespective of the fact that the vehicle in question stood transferred by the registered owners to Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal, who is the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. This point is common in all the appeals. (2) The damages awarded to Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, appellant in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 is inadequate. The Tribunal should have awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 1, 25,000 as claimed in the claim petition and has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh as damages.
(3.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Taking the first point first, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident with the respondent No. 1. The accident took place on 25th of April, 1974. The Insurance Policy was obtained by Chandmal and Ramesh Chand on 14th of February, 1974 for a period of one year. It has been found by the Tribunal that Gauri Shanker Paliwal had become owner of the Jeep sometime prior to 31st of March, 1974 and was, therefore, owner of the vehicle in question on the date of the accident and that Ramesh Chand, Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar had ceased to be its owner, vide para 25 of the judgment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle as well as for the claimants is that in view of Sections 103-A, 94 and Section 95 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, Insurance Company would continue to be liable to indemnify transferee of the vehicle in respect of an accident caused by an insured vehicle irrespective of the fact that the ownership of the vehicle has been changed. To put it differently, it was submitted that under the scheme of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the insurance is for the benefit of a third party i. e. a person who is not a party to the agreement of insurance but is its beneficiary. The finding recorded otherwise by the Tribunal is legally incorrect and cannot be sustained in view of the various authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid finding in the present appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sheela Rani (Smt.) & Ors. , 1999 (1) JCLR 158 (SC) : (1998) 6 SCC 599, the view of the Court below is not in consonance of the provisions one scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In this case the Supreme Court has approved the ratio of Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, AIR 1986 AP 62, wherein it was held that on perusal of Section 94, it is clear that the statute intended to give protection to a third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damages to their property while using the vehicle in a public place. Hence the insurance of the vehicle, under Section 94 read with Section 95 is made compulsory. Those two provisions do not extend the compulsory insurance to the vehicle or to the owner. In fact these two provisions made exception to protect the life or limb of the driver of the vehicle or the passenger in the vehicle except public service vehicle. Thus, it is seen the compulsory insurance is for the benefit of third parties. Hence, it is clear that the insurance policy covering three kinds of risks i. e. person (owner), property (vehicles) and third parties is clearly in the nature of composite one. The public liability (third party liability) alone is compulsory. While considering whether the transfer of the vehicle would put an end to the policy, we must see whether such a composite policy will lapse putting an end to all the three kinds of risks undertaken by the insurance company.;