Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 577 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Chand

2023-10-05

SANJAY DHAR

body2023
ORDER : 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged award dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), whereby an amount of Rs. 4,36,940/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5, to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company. 2. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants have filed a petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of Sham Lal, who was stated to have died as a result of motor vehicular accident that took place on 09.04.2006, while the deceased was driving a vehicle No. JK14-5546. It was further claimed that the deceased was working under employment of respondent No. 6, the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The Commissioner on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the deceased was working under employment of respondent No. 6 the registered owner of the vehicle in question and his death took place during the course of his employment. It was also found that the deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs. 4000/-. Since the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company, it was saddled with liability to indemnify the insured. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the registered owner of the vehicle had transferred the vehicle in question to respondent No. 7 without getting the certificate of insurance transferred in favour of the said respondent. On this ground, it is urged that the appellant-Insurance Company was not obliged to pay compensation to the claimants. It has been claimed that the insured-respondent No. 6 has transferred the offending vehicle prior to the date of the accident without getting the certificate of insurance transferred in favour of the transferee and without intimation to the appellant/insurer. Therefore, according to the appellant, the registered owner of the vehicle did not have any insurable interest, as such, the Insurance policy ceased to be in force. 4. Heard and considered. 5. So far as assertion of the appellant-Insurance Company that the insured vehicle was transferred by its registered owner i.e. respondent No. 6 herein in favour of respondent No. 7 is concerned, the said assertion has not been established before the learned Commissioner. 4. Heard and considered. 5. So far as assertion of the appellant-Insurance Company that the insured vehicle was transferred by its registered owner i.e. respondent No. 6 herein in favour of respondent No. 7 is concerned, the said assertion has not been established before the learned Commissioner. There is a clear finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 6 at the time of the accident and its transfer in favour of respondent No. 7 has not been established. This finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in the present appeal, therefore, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that because transfer of the insured vehicle had taken place from respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 7 without transfer of the certificate of insurance and without intimation to the appellant-Insurance Company, is without any substance. 6. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the insured vehicle had been transferred by its registered owner i.e. respondent No. 6 in favour of respondent No. 7 prior to the date of the accident without getting the certificate of insurance transferred and without intimation to the appellant-Insurance Company, still then in terms of provisions contained in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where a person who is holding a certificate of insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, transfers the ownership of the said vehicle to another person, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle has been transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Only the certificate of insurance, which has been issued in accordance with Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act gets automatically transferred in the name of transferee of the vehicle, meaning thereby, that a certificate of insurance to the extent it covers compulsory risks as per requirement laid down in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which falls in Chapter XI of the said Act, would get transferred. In terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compulsory policy requirements include risks inter alia in respect of liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury to an employee. In terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compulsory policy requirements include risks inter alia in respect of liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury to an employee. Therefore, in the instant case, the certificate of insurance to the extent it covers compulsory risks relating to liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of death of the deceased, would get automatically transferred to respondent No. 7 upon transfer of the offending vehicle by its original owner i.e. respondent No. 6. 7. In the above context, I am supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case titled, ‘Rikhi Ram and another vs. Sukhrania (SMT) and others’ reported in (2003) 3 SCC 1997 and ‘Firdaus vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.’ reported in (2017) 15 SCC 674 . 8. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the insurer is eligible to be exonerated of its liability of paying the awarded sum to the claimants, is without any merit. 9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, as such, the same is dismissed.