IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 383 of 2009(A) ---------------------------- OPMV.554/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VADAKKE IRUMBU PALAM, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 & ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH G. PLATHOTTAM, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, POONJAR. 2. JIJO THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MADACKAL HOUSE, XVIII, PALA. 3. TOMY LUCKOSE, PUNNOLIL HOUSE, PLASSANAL P.O., THALAPALAM VILLAGE. 4. CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NBC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.383 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P. (MV)No.554 of 2006. By virtue of the award, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.39,150/- and the National Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the addl. 4th respondent on the date of accident by virtue of a comprehensive policy and therefore it is liable to pay the amount. The learned Tribunal held that the policy issued by the appellant would be deemed to have been transferred and therefore the said insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability. 2.The few facts necessary are that the appellant had issued a policy in the name of one Sudheeran and the said Sudheeran had sold the vehicle on 15.5.2005 in favour of one Jijo Thomas and the said Jijo Thomas had taken a policy from the 4th respondent for a wider coverage. The said policy is MACA 383/2009 -:2:- valid for the period from 27.5.2005 to 26.5.2006. The accident took place on 30.9.2005. Now the contention is that since the appellant company has issued a policy in the name of the previous owner by virtue of the statutory fiction under Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it should have been deemed to be transferred in favour of the purchaser and therefore the said company cannot claim exoneration of the liability. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me that it is true that the vehicle had been transferred. Subsequent to the transfer and before the accident, the owner of the vehicle had taken a policy from the 4th respondent and the said policy was in force during the period of accident. So, the question is what will be the impact of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the subsequent issuance of the policy by the 4th respondent. Section 157 of the said Act was introduced by Amendment Act of 1989 and as per the said provision, when the vehicle is transferred, there is a deemed transfer of the policy as well and Section 157 (2) envisages a situation that the transferee has to apply to the insurance company for a transfer of the policy. 4. Now the situation may arise where a vehicle is transferred and no other policy is taken by the transferee. In such a situation, it is perfectly justified in holding that the deemed fiction will come into operation and it MACA 383/2009 -:3:- cannot defeat the right of a 3rd party who is entitled to claim compensation from the insured. But, now admittedly the policy stood in the name of the previous owner. The previous owner transferred the vehicle to the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent took a fresh policy in the month of May, 2005. The accident took place only in September 2005. So there was a valid coverage for the vehicle in the name of 2nd respondent in the claim petition and it was issued by the addl. 4th respondent. So the question of a deemed transfer may not be of any importance for the reason that the vehicle was validly covered by a policy in the name of the registered owner, who was the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of accident. When it is so, one cannot hold that by virtue of the deemed transfer the original insurer has to pay the amount and subsequent insurer can keep quite. I feel such an approach will be really doing violence to the intention of the Legislature contemplated under Section 157 of the said Act. Therefore the appeal is allowed and it is made clear that the claimant is entitled to compensation from the addl.4th respondent Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Co.Ltd., NSC Bose Road, Chennai and not from MACA 383/2009 -:4:- the 3rd respondent National Insurance Company. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-