JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of five appeals, i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 472, 473, 683, 598 and 626, all of the year 1988, as all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated January 2, 1988, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from FAO No. 472 of 1988.
(2.) BRIEFLY , facts of the case are that on December 23, 1983, Vinod Kumar deceased along with his family members was travelling in a three-wheeler, being driven by Hari Mohan deceased. When it reached near local Rigo bridge, a truck bearing registration No. PNB 897, owned by appellant Jasbir Singh, and driven by respondent No. 6 Santokh Singh, struck against the three-wheeler, which resulted into deaths of Hari Mohan (driver of the three-wheeler), and Vinod Kumar, who was travelling in the same. Factum of accident and deaths of Hari Mohan and Vinod Kumar in that accident are not in dispute. At the time of trial, the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7, in its written-statement raised an objection that as the registered owner had died on December 1, 1983, the accident had occurred on December 23, 1983, as such the insurance policy had lapsed because no intimation was sent for transfer of the insurance policy and also of the vehicle in dispute. That objection was upheld and the Tribunal held that the owner, the appellant, was liable to make payment of the compensation amount. Shri Mahajan placed reliance upon ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 489 : AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1398; Rikhi Ram and another v. Smt. Sukhrania and others, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 756 : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1446 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 168 : 2007(4) R.A.J. 404 (SC) to argue that the transfer of the vehicle makes no difference so far as claim of compensation by the third party is concerned.
(3.) ARGUMENT raised is perfectly justified. In the present case, the appellant is son of the owner of the vehicle, who had died only a few weeks earlier to the date of accident. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. Govindan's case (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, have held as under : "The registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee is not necessary to pass title in the vehicle. Payment of price and delivery of the vehicle makes the transaction complete and the title will pass to the purchaser. When the policy of insurance obtained by the original owner of the vehicle is composite one covering the risks for his person, property (vehicle) and the third party claim, on passing of title the transferee cannot enforce his claim in respect of any loss or damage to his person and vehicle unless there is novation. So far the third party risk is concerned the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Sections 29-A and 31 read with Section 94 of the Act. Till he complies with the requirement of Section 31 of the Act the public liability will not cease and that constitutes the insurable interest to keep the policy alive in respect of the third party risks are concerned. It must be deemed that the transferor allowed the purchaser to use the vehicle in a public place in the said transitional period and accordingly till the compliance of Section 31, the liability of the transferor subsists and the policy is in operation so far it relates to the third party risks. We answer the second question accordingly." To the same effect is the ratio of other two judgments, referred earlier. In this case, admittedly, the truck was insured in the name of one Inder Singh, who had died a few weeks prior to the date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that Jasbir Singh, the appellant, is son of deceased Inder Singh, who had become owner of the truck in dispute, by way of natural succession. At the time of accident, insurance policy was still in existence. As such in view of settled proposition of law, referred to above, and facts of this case, it is held that not only the appellant but the Insurance Co. was also liable to make payment of the compensation amount. Accordingly both, appellant Jasbir Singh and the Insurance Co., are held liable jointly and severally to make payment.;