FAO No.2643 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2643 of 1998 Date of Decision. 20.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Jaswinder Kaur wd/o Sukhdev Singh son of Lal Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, 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 insurnace company denies liability to the claim on the ground that the 1st respondent Ashok Kumar, who had been added as a party before the Tribunal became an owner by a transfer of registration only on 09.10.1996, while the accident took place on 16.09.1995. The insurance policy had been filed before the Court to show that the insurance had been taken only by the owners Subhash Chand and Sohan Lal and both of them were not made as parties. It is seen in this case that the 2nd Respondent's name although not found, states the owner of the jeep, which shall be revealed by the 1st respondent. Evidently, for a third party claimant, he was making the owner, who was in-charge of the vehicle as a party as 1st FAO No.2643 of 1998 -2- respondent and expected the registered owner's name to be given out to him and arrayed as 2nd merely "owner of jeep No.HR-24-A- 9972 (to be disclosed by the respondent No.1)." It appears from the judgment that the Court had struck off the 2nd respondent by its order dated 28.07.1998. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that it is insured to cover the risk of the owners namely Subhash Chand and Sohan Lal and they were not made as parties. Only Ashok Kumar, who became a subsequent purchaser had been made as party. The first respondent, who was impleaded did not deny that he was the owner on the date of accident. He was himself indeed the driver also. It may be noticed that the registration certificate was transferred subsequently to the accident. As far as the third party is concerned, such a transfer of registration belatedly or even a want of transfer of registration could make no difference; nor could that make difference even for an insurer for the language of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act is clear, which reasd thus: "157. Transfer of certificate of insurance. (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in FAO No.2643 of 1998 -3- favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance." 3. By virtue of this provision, there is a deemd transfer of such certificate of insurance and there is an implied liability to indemnify even against a transferee whose transfer is not notified to it. A third party claim cannot, therefore, be defeated in any sense by the insurer to plead that there was no information regading the transfer of a vehicle or policy. 4. The insurance company shall, therefore, be liable and the finding rendered to that effect shall not require any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 20, 2010 Pankaj*