IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1126 of 2007(F) ----------------------- OP(MV).1001/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ M.P. ABRAHAM, MEKKUNNEL HOUSE, KOOVALLOR, POTHANIKKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS @ KUNJUMON, S/O. JOHN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, VENMANY KARA, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. ROY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, THRAYIL HOUSE, MANCHIPEEDIKA BHAGAM, KADAVOOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE,KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MADAPPARAMBIL CHAMBERS MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. SUNIL A.K., S/O.KUNJUKOCHUKUNJU, AERPALATHINKAL HOUSE, POTHANIKADU,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008 ALONG WITH MACA NO.864 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.NO. 1126/2007 ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1276/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1126/2007 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 16.09.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A. Nos. 1126 & 864 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT M.A.C.A No.1126 of 2007 is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P(MV) No.1001/2003 and other M.A.C.A is filed against the award in O.P (MV) No.1012 of 2003. The Tribunal after awarding compensation, directed the owner to reimburse the amount to the Insurance Company. It is against that decision, the owner has come up in appeal. The Insurance Company was directed to be reimbursed on the ground that there was no transfer of policy in the name of the present owner and therefore, there was no Contract of Insurance, which made Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. It is true under the Motor Vehicles Act,1934 under Section 103, the issuance of insurance policy was to the owner of the vehicle and therefore, there was only a privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the insured. When that was the situation as there cannot be any privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the subsequent purchaser, the court shall take the view that Insurance Company is to be exonerated from the M.A.C.A. Nos. 1126 & 864 of 2007 2 liability. But by the amended act of 1988 and especially in Section 157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, the policy is issued to the vehicle and therefore whenever the vehicle is transferred, the policy runs with the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company is bound under the Contract of Insurance. Therefore, just because the policy stands in the name of the original owner does not Ipso facto absolve the liability of the Insurance Company for the reasons that there is a deeming provision of transfer of policy under Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal in these cases to reimburse compensation from the appellant is not sustainable and the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount ordered. The appeals are allowed accordingly and the appellant is exonerated from making any payment to the Insurance Company and it shall be for the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm