F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Manohri Devi. & Ors. ...Respondents 2) F.A.O.No. 61 of 1989 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Madan Lal. & Ors. ...Respondents Date of Decision : 11.9.2008 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant in both the appeals. Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for Atul Kumar (respondent No.6 in FAO No.60 of 1989 and respondent No.3 in FAO No.61 of 1989). MAHESH GROVER.J.(Oral) The only plea that has been raised in the aforesaid appeals is that the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award in view of the fact that the offending vehicle was not validly insured with the F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 -2- appellant on the date of the accident which took place on 6.12.1985. The facts of the case reveal that the offending vehicle was originally owned by Yogesh Kumar Goyal, who subsequently sold it to one Atul Kumar on 15.11.1985. The registration of the vehicle was also transferred in the name of Atul Kumar, the subsequent transferee on the same day, but the transfer of the insurance policy was effected on 11.12.1985. During this interregnum the truck is said to have met with an accident on 6.12.1985. Denying its liability the insurance company has relied upon the provisions of Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contend that since the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed and the policy not transferred in the name of subsequent transferee, it could not be said that the vehicle was validly insured. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the testimony of RW3 Atul Kumar to contend that there is ambiguity in his statement and there is no record regarding the prayer for transfer of the policy which was to be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Concededly, Atul Kumar while appearing as RW3 had stated that he had made the application on 11.12.1985 itself with the office which had issued the policy in the first instance. There is no evidence to suggest that this was not done and the Tribunal has rightly discarded this plea of the appellant. That apart, this Court in Baldev Raj v. Dharmo Rani and others 1990 ACJ 601 has held as F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 -3- under :- “5. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The ill-fated truck was insured by its original owner with the insurance company. It was transferred by the original owner on May 14, 1986 and the accident took place on May 19, 1986. There is no evidence on record that any intimation was given either by the original owner or by the purchaser to the insurance company that the transfer has taken place and that the insurance policy be transferred in the name of the purchaser. The intimation regarding purchase had to be given by the original owner as provided under Section 103-A of the Act. If the intimation had been sent and no response had been received thereto from the insurance company within 15 days, the transfer of the insurance certificate in favour of the transferee would have been effected from the date of the transfer of the vehicle in his favour. The principle underlying the aforesaid provision is that the insurance company cannot be allowed to ward off its liability by simply delaying the transfer of the certificate of insurance in favour of the purchaser of the vehicle. If an accident takes place and liability is incurred by the purchaser during the period between the date of the transfer of the vehicle and the date of the actual transfer of the certificate of insurance by the insurer, the insurer has to discharge it. F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 -4- 6. Baldev Raj, purchaser of the truck, is a stranger to the insurance company. There was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the insurance company.” In this view of the matter when there is no cogent evidence to establish that the subsequent transferee had not submitted the application in due time, it cannot be ruled out that the delay as suggested by the appellant in effecting the transfer of the policy could have occurred in the office of the appellant itself. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed. 11.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss F.A.O.No. 60 of 1989 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 61 of 1989 Date of Decision : 10.9.2008 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Madan Lal. & Ors. ...Respondents Date of Decision : 11.9.2008 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... For orders, see F.A.O.No.60 of 1989 (The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Versus Smt. Manohri Devi. & Ors. ). 11.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss