JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of two claim petitions filed by same set of claimants in respect of two deaths that occurred in same accident and raise a common issue. Hence, the two appeals are being heard and decided together. The accident took place on 21.5.1979 and both claims have been tried together and decided by one single order. 2. In each case the respondent No. 7, lqbal Mohammed has not been served who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and we shall presently notice that for the decision of the issue which has been raised in these appeals, the presence of lqbal Mohammed is not necessary, therefore, we dispense with the service of lqbal Mohammed for the purpose of deciding these appeals. 3. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of this appeal claimants Smt. Santosh and Smt. Hulasi Devi have died. On application having been made in that regard their names have been deleted and as their legal representatives were already taken on record, therefore, in the appeals such legal representatives have been treated to be party in their own capacity as well as representing the estate of deceased claimants. 4. The relevant facts necessary for the present purposes are that a truck No. RST 4061 was involved in the accident which took place on 21.5.79 near the Traffic Accounts Office, Northern Railway, which resulted in death of Shri Gopi Chand and his father Shri Shankar Lal. In respect of these two deaths, two claim petitions were preferred by the present respondents-defendants who are sons, daughters and widow of the respective deceased persons. 5. The claimants have asserted in their claim petitions in para 9 of their claim which consists of three of paragraphs viz. name and address of the driver, name and address of the owner of the vehicle if known and the name of the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle has been insured if any. In that details it was clearly stated by the claimants that lqbal Mohammed S/o Jafar Mohammed was the driver; Jai Mal Singh S/o Jodh Singh was registered owner of the vehicle and presently the owner of the vehicle is Ranjeet Mal Haran S/o Simrath Mal Haran, resident of Sirohi. The Insurance Company in its reply did not deny any of the facts mentioned in para 9. The Insurance Company in its reply did not deny any of the facts mentioned in para 9. It clearly stated that it does not have facts mentioned in para 9-A that is relating to name and address of the driver. In respect of Item No. B and C of Para-9 it was stated that the Insurance Policy exists in the name of Jaimal Singh. No denial was made of the fact that Ranjeet Mal Haran is the present owner of the vehicle. No plea of want of knowledge was raised. No plea of defence was raised on the ground that transfer of the vehicle by the registered owner Jaimal Singh to Ranjeet Mal Haran, in whom admittedly no registration has taken place, was made without information to the Insurance company. The only plea on the basis of which the claim of the respondent-claimants was sought to be contested was that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the victims themselves and not because of any act or omission on the part of the driver. The following issues were framed on the place of pleadings by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal: " 1- D;k fnukad 21-5-1979 dks tks/kiqj esa mRrj jsyos ds V~SfQd ,dkmUV vkWfQl ds ikl tks nq?kZVuk gqbZ vkSj ftlesa xksihpUn o 'kadj yky dh e'R;q gqbZ] og V~d ua0 vkj0ts0Vh0 4061 ds pkyd bdcky eksgEen ( foi{kh ua0 1 ) dh xQyr] ykijokgh o vlko/kkuh ds dkj.k gqbZ\ 2- D;k ?kVuk ds oDr mDr foi{kh ua0 1 bdcky eksgEen foi{khx.k uEcj 2 o 3 dh lsok esa Fkk vkSj muds dk;Z gsrq V~d pyk jgk Fkk\ 3- D;k izkFkhZx.k e'rd xksihpUn o 'kadjyky ij vkfJr Fks vkSj os {kfriwfrZ ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 4- izkFkhZx.k {kfriwfrZ gsrq fdruh jkf'k fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 5- i{kdkj fdl vuqrks"k ds ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ " 6. It was found that at the time of accident Iqbal Mohammad was driving the vehicle under the employment and under the instructions and for the purposes of Ranjeet Mal Haran. However, it is held that it is not proved whether Jaimal Singh had any interest in the vehicle, other than that he was a registered owner of the vehicle and further that the claimants have not proved that Iqbal Mohammad was driving the vehicle at the time of accident under the instructions and for the purposes of Jaimal Singh. 7. However, it is held that it is not proved whether Jaimal Singh had any interest in the vehicle, other than that he was a registered owner of the vehicle and further that the claimants have not proved that Iqbal Mohammad was driving the vehicle at the time of accident under the instructions and for the purposes of Jaimal Singh. 7. Deciding the issue No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in favour of the claimants, the compensation has been awarded under the two applications against Igbal Mohammad and Ranjeet Mal only. The claim against Jaimal Singh and the Insurance Company was rejected. 8. It may be noticed that the Tribunal has noticed in unequivocal terms that the Insurance Company has not denied the fact that the Iqbal Mohammad was driving the vehicle under the instructions and authority of Jaimal Singh and Ranjeet Mal Haran. Nor he has denied any of the facts stated in para-9. 9. Separate appeals were preferred by Ranjeet Mal Haran in both the cases as Misc . Appeal No. 143/85 and 144/85 respectively challenging the finding about execution of Insurance Company of the liability arising out of the accident. Appeals were also preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, and for decreeing their claim against the original owner and the insurer as well. Those appeals by the claimants were appeals No. 196/85, Bhanwari Devi and Ors. v. Iqbal Mohammad and Ors. and 197/85, Santosh and Ors. v. Iqbal Mohammad and Ors. . 10. The learned Single Judge in his common order in all the four appeals dated April 10, 1989 formulated the questions to be considered by him in those appeals as under: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the claimants are not entitled to recover any compensation from the registered owner of the truck viz., Shri Jaymal Singh and the New India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur? 2. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is insufficient and is against the principles of law? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate and from what date? 11. 2. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is insufficient and is against the principles of law? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate and from what date? 11. The learned single judge found in favour of the claimants as well as Ranjeet Singh Haran that the original owner and insurance were not absolved from their liability and also allowed the cross-objection by enhancing the compensation to the extent stated in the order under appeal. The interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the application was also awarded against the four persons viz. Iqbal Mohammad, Jaimal Singh and New India Assurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur. 12. We find from the record that these appeals were filed on 10.7.89 which were reported to be barred by time and notices were ordered to be issued for application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, before making any order on said application the Division Bench noticed conflict of decision about maintainability of Special Appeal in the case of accidents claim under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred the question about maintainability to a larger Bench vide order dated 10.8.1993. A full Bench of this Court vide its order dated 31.10.1995 held in favour of maintainability of letters patent appeal in such cases. Thereafter, the court allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 on 18.4.1996, and the appeals were regularly registered only thereafter. 13. These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved with the decision of the learned single judge only on the ground that the Insurance Company was not liable under the policy issued by it in favour of Jaimal Singh because the vehicle has been transferred by him without informing to the insurer company and therefore, it was not responsible for indemnifying the original owner of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which was then in force. The findings on other aspects are not in challenge in these appeals. 14. The findings on other aspects are not in challenge in these appeals. 14. We have noticed in the narration of facts that the plea now sought to be raised by the appellants the insurer, that the transfer was made without information to the Insurance Company by the registered owner results in breach of condition and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify, was not taken by the Insurance Company either in their claim or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On the contrary, the fact that current ownership being vested in Ranjeet Mal Haran and the registered owner continue to be Jaimal Singh were clearly averred by the claimants and the same had been admitted by the present appellants without any denial. In these circumstances any breach of conditions in the form of transfer of the vehicle so as to absolve the Insurance Company from their liability, cannot be inferred or presumed to be existing without there being any pleading to that effect or any issue to that effect, or opportunity to lead any evidence to that effect by the parties likely to adversely affected. 15. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also not absolved the Insurance Company and Jaimal Singh on the basis of any flaw in the transfer of the vehicle but the merely absolved on the ground that after transfer Jaimal Singh did not continue to hold any interest in the vehicle in question and therefore, Iqbal Mohammad cannot be considered to be a driver acting under his instructions so as to bind him. The contention that information about transfer was not transmitted by the registered owner to the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle, with or without transfer of the insurance Policy, which is a question of fact was neither pleaded nor raised, now cannot be permitted at this stage by presuming such unpleaded facts to exist in their favour without trial. It may be noticed that it is not anybody's case that vehicle if insured under a current policy, in all circumstances ceased to cover under policy. 16. In these circumstances, once the victim of twin ownership viz. It may be noticed that it is not anybody's case that vehicle if insured under a current policy, in all circumstances ceased to cover under policy. 16. In these circumstances, once the victim of twin ownership viz. registered ownership and present ownership, existing on the day of accident is admitted by the appellants without demur and contesting the claim only on the basis of the negligence of victim and not on account of any act or omission attributable to policy holder, these appeals cannot succeed on the hypothetical ground of absence of information by the registered owner or buyer to the insurer. On the basis of attempt to raise new contentions of fact, appellants cannot succeed in these appeals. 17. Accordingly, the two appeals are dismissed. No orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******