r \A :^' [r >- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.- (^\ f(f^ ^_,_ ^\fuv Oivision Bgncft APPELLANT :- ^fHE ORIENTAL INSU. CO. LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.-l, THROUGH SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MADINA BUILDING, JAIL ROAD, RAIPUR Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- ^ 1. KU. RITU SARIN D/0 LATE KISHORE SARIN, AGE 17 YRS., RESIDENT OF ; BEHIND OF GIRIRAJ HOTEL, JAIL ROAD, RAIPUR RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- ^- ^^^ ^ PREMCHAND SAHU S/0 GANESH RAM SAHU, AGE NEAR 27 YRS., RESIDENT OF DONDEKALA, THANA DHARSINWA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR ^' . '^ •^ ^y ^ ANUJ AGRAWAL S/0 SHRI IM.G. AGRAWAI , 435, SAMATA COLONY, ' ^ RAIPUR 4. RANJIT ARORA @ VIKKY ARORA S/0 SHRI HARBANSH ARORA, RESIDENT OF SHYAM NAGAR, RAIPUR APPEAL UNDER SECTION^3 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^ ^ ^>-^. w-:M^!i ^, 1 ^sa^ '"'^;;/ss'^; (^. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH ^T BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ AppelJants Respondents M.A. [Cl No.841/2008 The Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. Vs Ku. Ritu Sarin & others Present: Mr. Sudhir Agarwat, Advocate for the cppellant. None for respondent No.l <& 2 though served, AAr* Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for the respondent No.3. AAr, C.ft. Sahu, Advocate for respondent No.4. ORDER (OraO (7th September, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeiiant-Insurance Company has fited this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 31.3.2008 passed by the learned 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Claims Tribunal') in CIaim Case No.107/04 in so far as it relates to fastening of liability upon it to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who is daughter of deceased Kishore Sarin, has filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Ks.43,83,857/- for the death of said Kishore Sarin, who died on 9.7.2002 due to injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on 14.5.2002 when the motorcycle of the deceased, on which he was coming towards Devendra Nagar from Pandri, ftaipur, was dashed by Santro Car bearing registration number C004-A-5577 due to rash ond negligent driving by its driver. The claimant has claimed compensation on the ground that she was dependent on the deceased, who was the sole earning member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award partially allowed the claim application, awarded a sum of Rs.11,55,605/- as compensation to the ^. "vv..^ [>?-t—y^k" claimant and fastened liability upon the appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimant. 5< Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the name of driver was not disclosed by the registered owner of the offending vehicie, the Insurance Company had no opportunity to verify 1+ie fact that as to whether driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving or not on the date of accident. Therefore, the appeilant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who was registered owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident, has submitted that vehicle-Jn- question was already sold to respondent No.4 namely Ranjit Arora under the written agreement dated 15.4,2002 and therefore, he is not responsible to inform about the driver etc. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also peru^d the records of the Claims Tribunal. 8. The word 'owner' has been defined in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), which reads as under:- "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is o minor, the guardion of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possesslon of the vehicle under thot agreement;" 9. The provision relating to transfer of insurance policy is given in Section 157 (l)of the Act, 1988 which reads as under:- tt (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 inr 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 favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of jts transfer/' 10.In the matter of Pushpa @ Leela & others Vs. Shakuntala & others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 240 the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the ratio laid down in the matt-er of T.V. Jose (Dr.) Vs. Chacko P.M. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 has held in Paras-10 <& 11 as under:- "10. Then, Section 50 of the Act'lays down the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is a long section and insofar as relevont it is reproduced below: "50. Transfer of ownership.—{i)Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred— (f?) the transferor shali— (/) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the tronsfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents Qnd in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central ^overnment to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and (//) * * * (A) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the tronsfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the tronsferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. (2)-(5) * * * (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may coiuse the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of regjstratjon. (7) A registering authority making any such entry shail communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to .the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority. 11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Supta nor the transferee Salig Ram took c^\ any step for the change of the name of -riie owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, In view of this omission Jitender ^upta must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale on 2-2-1993." Further, in Para-14 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that v'0n the basis of ihese dedsions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitencfer ffupta, who^ name continuecf in Ihe records of the registeHng authority as 'the owner of lfie truck was equalfy liable for payment of Ihe compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect af the truck was taken out m his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to Ifse insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltdls 11. In light of the above, if we examine the facts of present case, the position emerges is that though the vehicle was sold to the respondent No.4 under written agreement dated 15.4.2002 but the vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No.4 only on 01,08,2002 and therefore it cannot be said that on the date of accident the respondent No.4 was the registered owner of the vehicle in question as on the date of accident there was no transfer of the ownership of vehicle in favour of the respondent No.4 and unless & until there is transfer of vehicle in the name of new owner i.e. respondent No.4, there is no question of troinsfer of insurance policy in the name of respondent No.4, 12.In the instant case, according to first information r^port, one bdy was driving the offending vehicle, however, one person namety Premchand was p'roduced in the witness box as the driver of the offendin9 vehicle but he denied the fact of driving the motor vehicle. In these circumstances, since we have already held that the respondent No.3 was the registered owner of the offending yehicle at the time of accident, it was the duty of respondent No.3 to disclose the name of the driver and particulars of his driving licence, as provided in Section 134 (c) of the Act, 1988, which is reproduced herein below: ^ <?/ tt(c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely;- (i) insurance policy number and period of its validity; (ii) particutars of the persons injured or killed in the accident; (iii) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence/' but the same has not been done in thejnstant case and therefore, it cannot be said that the person who was driving the motor vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and thus, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is improper. 13.At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for the purpose of disclosing the name of the driver etc. 14. Since we have already held that fastening of liability upon the insurance company from, we feel that the matter should be remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to fix the liability and quantum afresh. 15.In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the appellant insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The Cbims Tribunal is directed to decide question of liabitity afresh without being influenced by the observations made in this order, The Claims Tribunal shall also fix the quantum on the basis of principles bid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another report-ed in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is furl-her directed thot if the amount deposited by the appellant herein has not been disbursed so far to the claimant, the appellant shall be allowed to withdraw the same and if the same has been withdrawn by the claimant, then recovery of the same shall be subject fb decision afresh in the matt-er, No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhaiuddin Judge ^sk^f^