JUDGMENT
R.S. Madan, J.
1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the legality of the award dated 2.6.1990 passed by Mr. D.D. Yadav, the then Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby the learned Tribunal accepted the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 60,000 as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, holding respondent No. 3 liable to make the payment.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 18.6.1989, Ram Chander, Head Constable; Jagmal Singh and Raj Kumar, Constables; were doing patrol duty on Ladwa-Radaur Road. Ram Chander, Head Constable and Raj Kumar, Constable, were on the right side of the road whereas Jagmal Singh was on the left side of the road. At about 2 a.m. when they reached near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Leeva, a truck being driven by the respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, arrived there from the side of Ladwa and hit Jagmal Singh from behind. As a result of the accident he fell down on the road and received injuries on his right leg. After the accident, the truck driver stopped the truck near the petrol pump at some distance for a moment. When the truck stopped near the petrol pump, the Head Constable Ram Chander noted down the number of the truck in the tube light. Truck number was DHG 5463. It was loaded with wooden logs. On seeing Head Constable approaching the truck, truck driver after speeding the truck ran away towards Yamuna Nagar. The injured Jagmal Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ladwa. The doctor on duty medico-legally examined Jagmal Singh and found fracture on his right leg at three places. On the report of Head Constable Ram Chander, a case under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the truck driver.
3. In the claim petition, the petitioner prayed that he had spent a huge amount on his treatment and remained on leave for a period of six months. Therefore, he prayed that he may be awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
4. Upon notice, respondents appeared and contested the petition. The respondents denied the accident in question. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, denied the accident and pleaded that the person who obtained the insurance policy had transferred the vehicle without any intimation to the insurance company. So, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was also pleaded that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence. The respondent No. 3 further pleaded that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 for third party insurance.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether Jagmal Singh had sustained injuries on account of his accident with truck No. DHG 5463 which took place on 18.6.1989 near Ladwa due to rash and negligent driving thereof by respondent No. 1? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled and from whom? OPP
(3) Relief.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that on 21.5.1990 two additional issues were also framed by the learned Tribunal, which are reproduced as under:
(2A) Whether the registered owner of truck No. DHG 5463 which is insured with respondent No. 3, has sold away the truck in question to Bhagwan Dass, respondent No. 2 and as such, policy on the sale truck stands lapsed?
OPR 3
(2B) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and causes of action?
OPR 3
7. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings. While disposing of issue No. 1, the Tribunal returned the finding on this issue in favour of the claimant, holding driver of the truck bearing No. DHG 5463 responsible for causing the accident. While disposing of issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 60,000 on all counts.
8. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, by filing this F.A.O. has challenged the impugned award of the Tribunal on the ground that since no intimation was sent to the insurance company regarding the transfer of the truck in question, therefore, the liability of the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation is not sustainable. This question was also raised by the respondent before the learned Tribunal, but the learned Tribunal while disposing of the contentions of the learned Counsel, observed as under:
In the present case, the facts are otherwise. Bhagwan Dass purchased the truck some six months prior to the occurrence and thus, he is actual owner of the truck. He obtained the insurance policy with his own efforts, with his own payment and in fact he is the policyholder, because he obtained the policy and made the payment. The name of the registered owner was got mentioned simply because the vehicle was not yet transferred in his name. Insurance policy was issued to Jamna Dass Oil Agencies c/o Jag-damba Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Railway Road, Kurukshetra. The words ‘c/o’ are not written simply for the convenience of address, because Jamna Dass Oil Agencies is a firm with permanent address and there was no necessity of writing its address as ‘care of Jagdamba Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Bhagwan Dass deposed in the witness-box that he obtained the insurance policy of the truck but in the name of earlier owner. He mentioned that Vachher, insurance agent came to his transport company and there he obtained the insurance policy. He had explained to him that he has purchased the truck but the registration has not yet been changed. So, the policy was issued in the name of Jamna Dass Oil Agencies.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to some of the judgments mentioned in the grounds of appeal, i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jolly Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. 1985 ACJ 488 (P&H); Col. K.S. Dhaliwal v. Jagdeep Riar 1986 ACJ 1073 (P&H) and Harbans Singh v. Krishan Lal 1984 ACJ 650 (P&H), in which it was observed that insurance company was not informed about the transfer of ownership in that event, the policy lapses and the insurance company was held to be not liable to pay any compensation.
10. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the claimant has referred to the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh , wherein in para 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
(13) Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under Section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under Section 157 of 1988 Act insofar as the liability towards a third party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the condition of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the 1988 Act had come into force. Hence, it is the 1988 Act which would govern the situation.
11. The judgments referred to in the grounds of appeal are not attracted to the facts of the case in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh .
12. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has not given any finding on the issue Nos. 2A and 2B, which were framed on 21.5.1990. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
13. Even during the pendency of this appeal, before this Court, learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to state as to how the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties because no evidence was led by the parties on this point.
14. It is evident from the record that the learned Tribunal while disposing of the claim petition has not separately recorded the findings on the issue Nos. 2A and 2B. There is no force in the contention as the learned Tribunal while disposing of issue No. 2, has dealt with the question posed in issue No. 2A specifically by observing that the mere transfer of the vehicle from the name of old owner to the new owner, would not absolve the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation in case of third party.
15. This appeal relates to the year 1990 and it will not be worthwhile to remit the case to the Tribunal for the simple reason that specific finding on the additional issues have not been given. Appellant was required to prove if any prejudice has been caused. The parties were aware of their case and agitated the pouch of controversy before the Tribunal. The appellant, i.e., insurance company, has led evidence on these issues and discussion on the same, is found mentioned in the award while disposing of issue No. 2. I, therefore, feel that it is not a fit case where the case should be remitted to the Tribunal for adjudicating upon the matter afresh.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh , on the point of not informing the insurance company about the transfer of vehicle in the name of new owner, the insurance policy does not lapse and it would be operative in favour of the third party.
17. As a sequel to my above discussion there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.