F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 Date of Decision. 28.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-I, S.C.O. N.332- 334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Aman Deep Singh, Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Nirmala Devi wife of Baldev Singh son of Chiman Lal and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.1237 of 2002 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-I, S.C.O. N.332- 334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Aman Deep Singh, Asstt. Manager ......Appellant Versus Harwinder Kaur wife of Sewak Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 3. FAO No.1473 of 2002 Sorbjit Singh s/o Sh. Balvir Singh Baja Khanna Road and another ......Appellants Versus Harwinder Kaur w/o Sewak Singh and others ......Respondents 4. FAO No.1474 of 2002 Sorbjit Singh s/o Sh. Balvir Singh Baja Khanna Road and another ......Appellants Versus Nirmla Devi w/o Baldev Singh and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellants. Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate for the insurance company. F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 -2- 5. FAO No.1611 of 2002 Tarsem Chand son of Jaswant Singh resident of ward No.4, Anupgarh, Tehsil Anupgarh, Distt. Ganga Nagar ......Appellant Versus Nirmla Devi w/o Baldev Singh and others ......Respondents 6. FAO No.1612 of 2002 Tarsem Chand son of Jaswant Singh resident of ward No.4, Anupgarh, Tehsil Anupgarh, Distt. Ganga Nagar ......Appellant Versus Harwinder Kaur wife of Sewak and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate for the insurance company. 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. All the appeals arise out of the same accident. Appeals filed by the insurance company are in FAO No.1236 and 1237 of 2002 while the appeals by the driver and the owner are FAO Nos.1473-74 and 1611-12 of 2002 respectively. By virtue of the award, the liability was cast on the insured's driver as responsible for the accident but the insurance company had been provided with the right of recovery on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The claims emanated from the representatives of deceased and the pillion driver, who while riding on a scooter dashed against the insured's F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 -3- vehicle from behind. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the claimants that the driver of the insured's vehicle was negligent in parking the vehicle without sufficient indication at the middle of the road and that had been the cause for the accident. In this case, the driver did not examine himself and therefore, there was sufficient justification for the Tribunal to render a finding that the driver of the insured's truck was responsible for the accident. I sustain the finding of the Tribunal relating to the negligence and I would, therefore, hold the liability of the owner of the truck-insured and the insurer for satisfying the claimants. 2. As regards the plea of the insurance company that there had been a violation of terms of the policy by the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the Tribunal found and produced the evidence of the licensing authority-RW-2 to show that there had been no issue of licence in favour of the driver involved in the accident. I have already observed that the driver did not examine himself and no explanation was offered by him. The provision for recovery granted by the Tribunal, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified. The liability of the insurer as far as the claimants are concerned could never be denied in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342 and subsequently dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279. 3. The awards are confirmed and the appeals in FAO Nos.1236 and 1237 of 2002 are dismissed. 4. The contention placed on behalf of the registered owner of F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 -4- the truck, who was said to have been responsible for the accident was that he transferred the vehicle to Balbir Singh and the application for transfer of the registration of the vehicle was still with the transport authority awaiting registration. The fact of transfer of the vehicle was itself not denied and the transferee had been impleaded as the 5th respondent in the claim petitions. The Tribunal found the registered owner as well as the transferee liable for compensation. When the insurance company has been made liable, which is on the basis that there is a deemed transfer as provided under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said presumption must be taken to its logical end to provide for liability only against the transferee, who was made as party and it was irrelevant that the registration had also not been transferred to the transferee. Section 50, which contemplates a transfer of ownership makes provision for transfer of registration of ownership. The ownership of the vehicle itself is transferred by delivery in the manner contemplated by Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act. This point has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha Vishwanathan and others Vs. V.K. Elayalwara nd others 2001(8) SCC 133. The liability cast on the appellant, who had already transferred the vehicle to Balbir Singh was, therefore, not tenable. The appeals in FAO Nos.1611 and 1612 are allowed. 5. The driver, who preferred the appeals, is not before the Court. The appeals filed by the driver are, therefore, dismissed for default. The owner was subsequent transferee Balbir Singh against whom a right of recovery has been ordered by the Tribunal and he has F.A.O No.1236 of 2002 -5- not himself come on appeal and therefore, the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the same against the owner of the truck as found already by the Tribunal. On an overall consideration of all the cases, the modification that has come through this judgment is that the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is retained. The liability shall be primarily on the insurance company to satisfy the claims. The insurance company will have a right of recovery against Balbir Singh, who is the transferee and his driver. The registered owner of the vehicle shall stand exonerated. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 28, 2010 Pankaj*