Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 100 (HP)

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dev Raj

2019-01-08

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Fao No. 322 of 2015, stands, directed by the insurer, against, the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, camp at Bilaspur, upon, MAC No. 15/2 of 2009, (a) wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.4,33,400/-, alongwith interest, at, the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of institution of petition, till its final realization thereof, hence stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, (b) whereas, FAO No. 514 of 2015, stands, directed by one Pawan Kumar, wherethrough, he assails the findings hence occurring in the operative part of the impugned award, whereunder, joint and several, liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount rather stood assessed, upon, the appellant one Pawan Kumar, and, upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. Since, both the afore FAOs hence arise, from, a common verdict, hence, both are amenable, for, a common adjudication being meted thereon. 3. Unflinching, and, categorical evidence hence exists on record qua (i) in sequel to the user of the offending vehicle, at a public place, its developing a mechanical snag, and, for begetting rectification thereof, (ii) the petitioner/claimant while his aiding the mechanic, and, the driver, of the relevant bus, rather for ensuring the replacement, of, the spring leaf/Kamani thereof, his, proceeding, to position himself, underneath the relevant vehicle, (iii) and, during, the course of the afore endeavour, the “jack” giving away,and, in sequel whereto, the bus collapsing upon him, and, hence the disabling injuries standing encumbered, upon, the claimant. The apt disabling injuries, are, borne in Ex. PW3/A (Mark-X), and, the per centum of disability, spelt therein is, 65 %, of, the spine, and, it is also pronounced therein, qua it, being permanent in nature. The afore per centum of permanent disability encumbered, upon, the claimant, in sequel to the afore mishap, also stand uncontrovertedly borne out, by the evidence existing on record, to hence render the claimant rather permanently incapacitated, to, rear any income in future. The afore per centum of permanent disability encumbered, upon, the claimant, in sequel to the afore mishap, also stand uncontrovertedly borne out, by the evidence existing on record, to hence render the claimant rather permanently incapacitated, to, rear any income in future. Obviously, the afore forth right evidence, as existing on record, stands aptly borne in mind by the learned tribunal, for, it to hence conclude, qua, the relevant mishap occurring, during, the course of user of the offending bus, at a public place, (iv) whereupon, the disabled claimant, is, amenable, for, assessment of just compensation, and, the liability thereof being tenably fastenable, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. Be that as it may, given, the afore per centum of permanent disability encumbered, upon, the claimant, (I) the compensation assessed, under, various heads by the learned tribunal, vis-a-vis, the claimant, does not suffer from any gross perversity, or, absurdity, of, the appreciation of the material/evidence existing on record, (ii) in sequel, the compensation amount, as, determined by the learned Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal concerned, vis-a-vis, the claimant, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. However, the core res controversia, engaging the parties at contest, is, vis-a-vis, Pawan Kumar being the owner of the offending vehicle, and, also the apt insured, of, the offending vehicle, (i) given a valid contract, of, insurance existing on record, and, it being borne in Ex.DA, (ii) and, with the afore contract, of, insurance holding force, and, the relevant legal might, rather significantly in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, hence, taking place, (iii) thereupon, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer being both proper or valid, (iv) dehors the RC appertaining to the relevant vehicle, borne in Ex. R-1, making, a, categorical reflection qua the relevant vehicle being owned, by one Jawala Singh, (v) conspicuously, rather apparently with a string of judicial decisions, making a clear expostulation of law, qua, the registered owner, as reflected, in, the apposite registration certificate, alone being amenable qua the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, conspicuously, in, the absence of a valid contract of insurance hence existing in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, involving the vehicle concerned, (vi) thereupon, the transfer, if any, for any sale consideration, and, without the afore reflections, borne in the apposite RC, rather also in tandem therewith, hence getting their requisite correction(s), rather being both unworthy while and insignificant, importantly, for the afore purpose. Consequently, the operative part of the impugned verdict, in, making, a, disclosure qua one Pawan Kumar being jointly, and, severally liable along with, the, insurer of the offending vehicle, to, hence indemnify the compensation amount, warrants interference, and, it is quashed and set aside. 6. Furthermore, the apt legal conundrum, also enjoining, its, being put to rest by this Court, is, qua (a) whether with, existence, of a valid contract of insurance, and, it holding force, in, contemporaneity, with, the occurrence of the relevant mishap, and, the executants, of the afore contract being the appellant, and, one Jeet Ram Sharma, (b) qua whether, thereupon, upon transfer of the afore vehicle hence occurring, vis-a-vis, one Jawala Singh, (c) whether the afore Jawala Singh, disclosed, in the apt registration certificate, comprised, in Ex. R-1 to be the owner of the offending vehicle, was, validly empowered to hence exclude, the, fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, him, or (d) whether ipso facto, upon, transfer by one Jeet Ram Sharma, of, the offending vehicle, vis-a-vis, Jawala Singh, also per se hence begetting rather also transfer of the relevant contract, of, insurance, importantly, vis-a-vis, Jawala Singh, (e) hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability being befittingly directed, to be encumbered, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. The afore conundrum would be put to rest, upon, a perusal being made, of, the mandate of Section 154, of, the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “157. The afore conundrum would be put to rest, upon, a perusal being made, of, the mandate of Section 154, of, the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “157. Transfer of certificate of insurance.- (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 1[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.] (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” A circumspect, and, surgical reading of sub-section (1), of, Section 157 of the Act, (i) makes categorical unfoldments qua upon occurrence of a valid transfer, of, ownership, of the apposite motor vehicle, (ii) thereupon, also a deemed transfer of the contract of insurance, as, executed, inter se, the insurer, and, with the hitherto insured transferor, of, the offending vehicle, rather also occurring, vis-a-vis, the transferee, (iii) and, the afore deemed statutory occurrence(s) hence taking place from the date, of, the transfer of the vehicle concerned, by the transferor, to the transferee. The effect thereof being, upon, a valid transfer of the apposite vehicle, thereupon, ipso facto, a, deemed statutory transfer of all the benefits, of, the contract of insurance, being also bestowed upon the transferee, of, the vehicle concerned. The effect thereof being, upon, a valid transfer of the apposite vehicle, thereupon, ipso facto, a, deemed statutory transfer of all the benefits, of, the contract of insurance, being also bestowed upon the transferee, of, the vehicle concerned. A further corollary thereof being, qua, despite, the occurrence, of, the name of Jeet Ram Sharma, in, the insurance policy, yet, when within the ambit of subsection (1) of Section 157 of the Act, a deemed statutory transfer, of, the contract of insurance also begets, its apt ensual, and, thereupon, hence, the registered owner holds a valid espousal, for, exculpating the apt fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, him. Even though, sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the Act, enjoins, the transferee, to, within 14 days from the apt transfer, take, all necessary steps, significantly, with the insurer of the offending vehicle, to, beget the necessary changes, in, the contract of insurance. However, even if, the afore mandate remained uncomplied, with, by the transferee, yet, with no default clause hence occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the Act, qua, upon, the afore derelictions being made, by the transferee, thereupon, the operation and clout of subsection (1) hence being denuded, (b) thereupon, even with the transferee, omitting, to mete compliance therewith, (c) nonetheless, the effect, of, the deemed statutory transfer of the contract of insurance, as, contemplated, to occur, in simultaneity, and, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the apt valid transfer, of the vehicle concerned, (d) significantly, within the domain of sub-section (1) of Section 157, of, the Act, renders, eruption of a firm conclusion, qua, the insurer of the offending vehicle, given, the contract of insurance being alive at the relevant time, hence, being amenable, for, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability qua it. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in FAO No. 322 of 2015, and, it is dismissed accordingly, whereas, FAO No.514 of 2015 is allowed, to the extent that the findings, in, the operative portion of the impugned award, that, Pawan Kumar being jointly and severally liable, vis-a-vis, the apt compensation amount, along with the insurer, being amenable for reversal, rather, it is concluded that the apt indemnificatory liability, being jointly and severally fastenable, upon Jawala Singh, the person reflected, in the apt RC, to be owner of the offending vehicle, along with, the insurer of the offending vehicle. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.