ORDER
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. These appeals are preferred by the claimants against the common order dated 27-7-2000 in O.P. Nos. 261, 262, 263 and 291 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Karimnagar, raising only one question whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the vehicle.
2. The lower Court awarded compensation to the claimants after considering the merits of the respective cases and did not make the Insurance Company i.e., fourth respondent herein, liable to pay compensation on the ground that the Insurance Policy was obtained in the name of the third respondent and the ownership was with the second respondent as on the date of accident.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gowramma , wherein the Court held that:
The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the ownership of the vehicle is transferred to another person and the Insurance Policy was obtained subsequent to the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the transferor.
4. In Sadha Anjaiah v. Byjenth Kapoor (CMA No. 1066 of 1996, dated 12-4-2001), a learned Single Judge of this Court by following a judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Company Limited (1993) 3 SCC 754, held that:
The third parties right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy. In the instant case, there is a valid Insurance Policy covering third party risk.
5. In G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court held that:
A victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee.
So far as the third party risk is concerned the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Sections 29-A and 31 read with Section 94 of the Act. Till he complies with the requirement of Section 31 of the Act the public liability will not cease and that constitutes the insurable interest to keep the policy alive in respect of the third party risks are concerned. It must be deemed that the transferor allowed the purchaser to use the vehicle in a public place in the said transitional period and accordingly till the compliance of Section 31, the liability of the transferor subsists and the policy is in operation so far it relates to the third party risks.
6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Secunderabad v. K. Yadamma , a learned Single Judge of this Court held that:
When once the vehicle is insured, it covers any third party risk, including the transferee owner of the vehicle. It would further suggest that any person who uses the vehicle with the consent of the owner, not being actually a transferee owner, for consideration also, comes under the purview of the third party and even in such cases also the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident alone has to be considered as the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of liability to pay the compensation either under the M.V. Act or under the W.C. Act by the Insurance Company.
7. The present legal position is that the Insurance Policy runs with the vehicle irrespective of the transfer of the vehicle from one person to other. Though the policy was issued in the name of the transferor, the fact remains that it covers the risk of the vehicle.
8. By following the above decisions, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation irrespective of the transfer of the vehicle from the policy holder to another person. In the light of the above legal position, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable cannot withstand.
9. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. The fourth respondent-Insurance Company is made liable to pay compensation along with respondents 1 to 3. No costs.