Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 742 (MP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Bai

2001-10-11

V.K.AGARWAL

body2001
JUDGMENT This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 30.3.1992 in Claim Case No.8 of 1988 "by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara, awarding compensation of Rs. 48,000.00 under section 1l0A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal, stated in brief, are that on 6.9.1987, while the minor claimant-respondent No.1 Ku. Usha Bai was going by the road to her house, she was dashed against by jeep No. CIK-7866, resulting in grievous injuries to her, causing her permanent disability. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 Rajendra Kumar was the driver of the said jeep while it was owned by the respondent No.3 and, was insured by the appellant. The defence of the insurer-appellant was that the said jeep No. CIK-7866 was sold by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3. However, intimation regarding the said sale was not given to the appellant-insurer. Hence, the liability for payment of compensation could not be saddled on the appellant. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. It was further held that the jeep was owned by respondent No. 4 and that it was not established that the jeep was sold by him to respondent No.3. On assessment of evidence, and after consideration of the nature of injury, the extent of disability and the expenditure in treatment etc., the amount of Rs. 48,000.00 was considered to be just compensation. The respondents No.2, 4 and the appellant, were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation as above. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the jeep was transferred in favour of respondent No. 3 by its registered owner respondent No.4 and there was no intimation of the transfer as above, the appellant-insurer could not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. However, it may be noticed that the learned Tribunal, in paragraph 13 of the impugned award, after appreciation of evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the sale of the jeep by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.3 has not been proved. However, it may be noticed that the learned Tribunal, in paragraph 13 of the impugned award, after appreciation of evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the sale of the jeep by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.3 has not been proved. It may further be noticed that even if the plea of the appellant was to be accepted that the ownership of the jeep was transferred by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No. 3 and intimation thereof was not given to the appellant-insurer still the appellant-insurer could not avoid its liability to pay compensation so far as victim or legal representatives of the victim are concerned. Reference in the above connection may be made to G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others (AIR 1999SC 1398). Therefore, the contentions as above of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer, cannot be accepted. This appeal has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.