THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.879 OF 2005 DATED: 30-11-2009 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Senior Divisional Manager, Ramalaya Building, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT And Nakka Lalitha & 5 others. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 04-07-2005, in W.C.No.131 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,27,875/-. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents herein filed the claim application seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased- Shanthanna, who died in an accident that occurred during the course of his employment as labourer while working on the lorry bearing No.ADA.9977 on 18-07-2004. The 5th respondent herein is the owner of the lorry and the appellant is the insurer. 1st claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 18-07-2004 the deceased was proceeding from Ballari to Kurnool along with a load of paddy crop in the lorry as a labourer and when the lorry reached Janampet village petrol pump on N.H.No.7, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, it dashed against another vehicle bearing No.AP 21 U 1661, which was parked on the road side, as a result of which the deceased along with the other labourers fell from the lorry and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to area hospital, Wanaparthy, where he died while undergoing treatment. A case was registered by the Wanaparthy police in Cr.No.76 of 2004. According to the claimants, the deceased was paid Rs.3000/- per month besides daily batta and he was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. 4. The owner of the lorry did not file any counter. The appellant- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation, inter alia, contending that the policy was not transferred in favour of the owner of the vehicle by the original policy holder-B.Hussain Saheb and there is no privity of contract between the appellant-insurer and the opposite parties 1 and 3. 5. During enquiry, 1st claimant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on her behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer or the other opposite parties. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased died as a result of the accident that occurred in the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner further estimated the amount of compensation payable at Rs.2,27,875/- and passed an award for the said amount fastening joint and several liability on the appellant-insurer also. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 7. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased was working as a labourer in the lorry bearing No.ADA 9977 and that the accident occurred in the course of his employment, as such, is not seriously disputed. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged 30 years, as borne out by the inquest report-Ex.A2 and post mortem report-Ex.A4, and the learned Commissioner has rightly taken the said age into consideration. Though the applicants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- p.m. as wages, the learned Commissioner has, in the absence of any evidence to prove the same, taken into consideration the wages as per G.O.Ms.No.30, L.E.T. & F (Lab-II), dated 27-07-2000. As per the said G.O., the basic wage for a mazdoor of public motor transport was Rs.1437/- and the V.D.A was Rs.875.75/- and the total wages came to Rs.2312.75/-. Applying the multiplying factor of 197.06 for the age and wage of the deceased, the learned Commissioner has estimated the compensation payable at Rs.2,27,875/-. The quantum of compensation awarded, which is in accordance with law, is also not seriously disputed. 8. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant-insurer is liable to pay the compensation. It is not disputed that the lorry bearing No.ADA 9977 was registered in the name of the 5th respondent herein as per the certificate of registration-Ex.A6. Ex.A5-permit issued by the RTA, Anantapur, and Ex.A7-permit issued by the Karnataka State RTA both show that the 5th respondent herein (1st opposite party) was the registered owner and the permits issued in his name were subsisting. It is also not disputed that the lorry originally belongs to one Hussain Saheb and it was later purchased by the 5th respondent herein. The insurance policy was also issued in the name of Hussain Saheb and it was valid till 23-12-2004. The accident occurred on 18-07-2004. Thus, by the date of the accident there was a valid insurance coverage in force. However, the policy stood in the name of the original owner-Hussain Saheb. The learned Commissioner therefore held that the appellant- insurer is bound to indemnify the owner of the lorry as the policy was in subsistence as on the date of the accident, notwithstanding the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the 5th respondent. 9. In G.GOVINDAN v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS[1], the apex Court held that: “ As between the two conflicting views of the Full Bench judgments noticed above, we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah’s case (supra) as it advances the object of the legislature to protect the third party interest. We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee whose transfer has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. In other words, in accord with the well-settled rule of interpretation of statutes we are inclined to hold that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah’s case is preferable to the contrary views taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) even assuming that two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant sections as it promotes the object of the legislature in protecting the third party (victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the judgments of Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) differing from Andhra Pradesh High Court is not the correct one”. 10. In MADINENI KONDAIAH v YASEEN FATIMA [2], this Court held that the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. In other words, 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. 11. The above view was recognized in COMPLETE INSULATIONS (P) LTD., v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., [3] wherein it was held that: “Thus, the entire Chapter XI of the new Act concerns third-party risks only. It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third-party risks since Section 146 prohibits the use of motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third-party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the new Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaiah case (1 supra) because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred”. 12. The above case, however, is related to the damage caused to the vehicle and compensation claimed by the owner of the vehicle in whose favour the policy was not transferred as on the date of the accident and the insurer was not held liable to make good damage to the vehicle, but in the present case the deceased was a third party whose risk is admittedly covered by the policy. 13. I n JAMPARAPU JEEVAMMA AND OTHERS v. SANAPALLI VEERA REDDY AND ANOTHER[4], this Court, followed the principles laid down in G.GOVINDAN’s case, wherein it is held as follows: “ ….. When the policy of insurance obtained by the original owner of the vehicle is composite one covering the risks for his person, property ( vehicle) and the third party claim, on passing of title the transferee cannot enforce his claim in respect of any loss or damage to his person and vehicle unless there is novation. So far 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…. … In other words, 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”.……………… 14. It is therefore clear from the principles laid down in the above decisions, notwithstanding the transfer of the vehicle by the original owner in favour of the transferee-5th respondent herein, the appellant would still be liable to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the risk of the deceased is duly covered by the policy. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant would however contend that as the original owner is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings, the award ought not to have been passed against the appellant-insurer. 16. It is to be noted that the applicants are innocent victims of the accident which resulted in the unfortunate death of the deceased who was the sole bread winner of the family. They have impleaded the present owner of the vehicle besides the insurer in the claim application. The failure on their part to implead the original owner as well cannot be treated against them so as to deprive them of the benefit of the provisions of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation. The applicants, who are poor and illiterates, may not be aware of the details of the transfer of the vehicle between the original owner and the 5th respondent and therefore they have impleaded the person who was the owner and employer as on the date of the accident. The fact that there is no transfer of the policy by the original owner in favour of the 5th respondent-the present owner, does not therefore make any difference insofar as the claim of the applicants is concerned as the risk of the deceased was duly covered by the policy, which was in force as on the date of the accident. 17. In the circumstances, it is held that the award passed by the learned Commissioner does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2009 Tsy [1] 1999 ACJ 781 [2] 1986 ACJ 1 (AJ) [3] 1996 ACJ 65 (SC) [4] 2008(1)ALD 723