IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1195 of 2006(G) ----------------------- OP(MV)NO.27/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/SUPPL. 4TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- T.K.RAVINDRAN, RAMYAM, KALLAMALA POST, CHOMBALA, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------- 1. LATHEESH.T.P, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 13 YEARS, REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND MOTHER CHITHRA, THEKKAYIL PARAMBATH HOUSE, CHOMBALA DESOM, AZHIYOOR AMSOM. 2. DR.G.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.A.K.GOPALAN, SENIOR SURGICAN SPECIALIST, CHANDRAPUR AREA HOSPITAL, CHANDRAPUR. 3. K.K.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, KALLAMALA, D.L.NO.7861/91. 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037-A 25/97, AZAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)-R4 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm 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/-