ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DINABANDHU PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The effect of failure of a person to whom ownership of a motor vehicle has been transferred together with concerned policy of insurance to apply to the insurer in the prescribed manner, is the subject-matter of controversy in both the appeals. The points of law and facts situation being identical, both are disposed of by this judgment. A learned single Judge did not consider this question to be a substantial question of law in order to attract the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the 'Act'). It was observed that in view of the provisions contained in S. 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Motor Act') no substantial question of law was involved. With great respect we feel that the conclusion is not appropriate, and therefore the appeals were entertained.

(2.) Some unnecessary details (with) the almost undisputed facts situation is as follows:

(3.) In both the appeals, the learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that necessary application as warranted under sub-sec. (2) of Section 157 of the Motor Act having not been made to the insurer for making necessary changes regarding transfer of the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred, the transferee shall not be entitled to be indemnified. The owner and the claimants have, however, urged that by application of sub-section (1) of S. 157 there is a deemed transfer in favour of Jiten Kumar Mohapatra to whom the vehicle is transferred and, therefore, the conclusions of the Commissioner are irreversible.