FAO No.120 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.120 of 1998 Date of Decision. 30.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Sector 2, Parwanoo, H.P. through its Branch Manager ......Appellant Versus Sarbati widow of Sh. Amar Singh alias jat and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the registered owner and the insured was one Gian Singh but Rajesh Gasain had been shown as the owner of the vehicle. The fact that there existed policy of insurance for the offending vehicle is not in dispute. If the registered owner was Gian Singh and if the claimants had not impleaded the registered owner but given evidence that the vehicle had been transferred to Rajesh Gosain then that shall be sufficient representation and the insurer cannot plead that it will not be liable or the non-impleadment of the registered owner would have any bearing in view of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act which recognize a deemed transfer of policy in cases where a vehicle is transferred. The transfer of vehicle takes place by mere delivery and by payment of consideration, in the FAO No.120 of 1998 -2- manner set forth under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act. Section 50, which prescribes a procedure for transfer deals only with transfer of registration of vehicle and not transfer of the vehicle itself. This distinction was brought out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others Vs. V.K. Elayalwara and others 2001(8) SCC 133. In this case, the transferee Rajiv Gasain has admitted the fact of his purchase and the Criminal Court Ahalmd had also given evidence to the effect that the vehicle had been taken on superdari by Rajesh Gosain declaring himself to be the owner. This has been referred to also by the Tribunal as corroborative of the admission of Rajesh Gosain. 2. The insurance company also took up a plea that the driver was not duly licenced. The license produced shows that he had the licence to drive a motor cycle and car and the contention was that the offending vehicle was a maruti van. A mere nomenclature of van cannot take it outside the purview of the category as a car unless the offending vehicle belonged to one or the other categories mentioned under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no particular category as a van under Section 10 and therefore, the possession of licence to drive a car ought to be taken as sufficient to drive a van also. 3. The award of the Tribunal is sustained in all aspects and the appeal by the insurer is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2010 Pankaj*