FA/1348/1985 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1348 of 1985 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1351 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s) Versus BAI KADVIBEN KARSANBHAI V KOLI & 7 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SB VAKIL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MEHUL S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 5 - 8. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1348/1985 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. These Appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C. Cases No. 395/1979 to 401/1979, 109/1980 to 112/1980 and 131/1980 whereby, the said claim petitions were partly allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 On 16.08.1979 while the Truck bearing registration No. GTB – 5309, driven by respondent no. 5 and of the ownership of respondent no. 6, was going on the Morvi – Rajkot Highway, it turned turtle near Village Kagdadi as it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the said incident, many labourers who traveling in the said Truck sustained severe bodily injuries while four of them died on the spot. The injured labourers and the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, therefore, filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. 2.2 In the said claim petitions, the opponents filed their written statements. The Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on FA/1348/1985 3/5 JUDGMENT record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions. Hence, these Appeals. 3. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the vehicle in question had been transferred by respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 7, without the knowledge of the appellant, before the incident in question had taken place. Therefore, the appellant could not be held liable for the amount of compensation as there did not exist any contract of insurance between the parties on the date of the incident. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. M. S. Shah, learned Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 4, has submitted that as per the R.T.O. Records, the vehicle in question stood in the name of respondent no. 6 on the date of the incident and therefore, the said contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the vehicle had been transferred to respondent no. 7 is devoid of any merits. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed. 5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and respondents no. 1 to 4 and perused the FA/1348/1985 4/5 JUDGMENT documents on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 8. The Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question was produced on record at Exhibit – 96. As per the said Policy, respondent no. 6 was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the incident. The period of insurance was from 08.11.1978 to 07.11.1979 and the incident in question took place on 15.08.1979. Therefore, undoubtedly, the insurance policy was in force at the time when the incident took place. 6. It is a settled principle of law that a 'sale' would be effective only when full consideration is paid by the purchaser to the seller. In the present case, it is established from the record that on the date of the incident in question, the vehicle stood in the name of respondent no. 6. Some dealings appear to have taken place between respondent no. 6 and 7 in the interregnum period. However, on the date of the incident in question, the vehicle in question stood in the name of respondent no. 6 in the R.T.O. records. The Tribunal has discussed the aforesaid aspect in detail in Paragraph No. 43 of the impugned award. Having gone through the same, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation. FA/1348/1985 5/5 JUDGMENT 7. So far as the aspect of “goods vehicle” is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed the same in Paragraph No. 45 of the impugned award. As per the Insurance Policy of the vehicle, there was a specific ban for the use of the vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward. The appellant could not be held liable if the said restriction is breached and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the appellant from the liability of paying compensation. No other contention/s has been raised by the appellant. 8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the Tribunal was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment and award. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to interfere in these Appeals. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*