IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1195 of 2006()
1. T.K.RAVINDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LATHEESH.T.P, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
... Respondent
2. DR.G.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.A.K.GOPALAN,
3. K.K.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN,
4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BABU
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :18/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1195 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the 4th respondent in the
claim petition against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)27/98 whereby a right
is given to the insurance company to recover the amount
paid by it to the petitioner from respondents 1 and 4
subsequently. Admittedly, at one point of time the vehicle
belonged to the first respondent. Ext.B2 would reveal that
there has been a sale and the registration has been changed
and the 4th respondent in the claim petition has become the
owner with effect from 6.9.98. The accident had taken place
on 24.6.97. Subsequent to the expiry of Ext.B1 policy the
insurance company has issued policy in the name of 4th
respondent also. Though the 4th respondent contended that
he purchased the vehicle only in July, 1997 it was repelled by
the Tribunal on the basis of Ext.B3 document which
concludes the issue. So the following facts are clear;
M.A.C.A. NO. 1195 OF 2006
-:2:-
(1) that the 4th respondent was the registered owner of the
vehicle at the time of the accident and (2) there was a valid
policy in existence at that time. The only point agitated is
since the insurance company was not informed by the first
respondent regarding the transfer of the vehicle and as
contract of insurance is between two parties there is no
privity of contract between the insurance company and the
4th respondent and so it is not liable to pay the amount.
These fact had undergone a complete change with the
amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1988.
Section 157 of the M.V. Act enables and introduces a
deeming provision regarding the transfer of policy as well
when there is a transfer of the vehicle. Or in other words the
policy is issued with respect to the vehicle and not to the
individual. So if there is currency of policy irrespective of the
fact that the insurance company is intimated or not the
insurance company will be bound to indemnify. The said
view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in
Narayanan Nanu v. Manuel Thomas (2000(2) KLT 550)
M.A.C.A. NO. 1195 OF 2006
-:3:-
In that case this Court held that, “Section 157 provides that
where a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has
been issued, transfers to another person the ownership of
the vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy 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 transfer.” Therefore the finding of the Tribunal
directing respondents 1 and 4 to reimburse the amount to
the insurance company is not sustainable in law and
therefore it is set aside.
In the result the MACA is allowed and the finding of the
Tribunal entitling the insurance company to recover the
amount from respondents 1 and 4 in the claim petition is set
aside.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-