IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1673 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1458/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- C.N.KRISHNAN, S/O GOVINDAN, VELLARITHARAYIL HOUSE, CHEMPU VILLAGE, CHEMPU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS SRI. P.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. GANGA PRADEEPAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR P.O. CHERTHALA. 2. SAJI, S/O THANKAPPAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR P.O. CHERTHALA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R.3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1673 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.1458 of 1998. The claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the policy holder was not impleaded as a party. 2. Heard the counsel for the insurance company as well as the claimant. It can be seen from the documents made available that the vehicle originally stood in the name of one P.M.Youseff and with effect from 17.10.1997, the vehicle has been transferred in the name of the first respondent. I give this date for the reason that it is the date on which the transfer has been noted in the particulars. The policy was taken in the name of the original owner P.M.Youseff for the period from 15.9.1997 to 14.9.1998. The accident took place on 16.3.1998. So one thing is evident that the first respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. But, the policy stood in the name of the previous owner. Under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the vehicle that is MACA 1673/2007 -:2:- transferred and therefore the policy runs with the vehicle and the obligation cast is to give intimation. Under Section 103 of the old Act of 1939 there was a contract of insurance only between the owner and the insurer or in other words, there was a privity of contract between the two and therefore there was no enabling provision to have a deemed transfer. By virtue of Section 157 of the Act, there is a deemed transfer and therefore it has to be held that though the policy stood in the name of the previous owner there is a deemed transfer of the policy and therefore the owner of the vehicle is liable to be indemnified by the insurance company. 3. Now let me consider about the quantum of compensation. So far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal arrived at a finding regarding the same. The claimant sustained fracture on the right scapula and was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 10 days. He was a labourer by profession and was aged 58 years at the time of accident. A copy of the disability certificate produced before me for perusal would reveal that there was some weakness on the right side of the upper and lower limbs. The Doctor has not given any percentage of disability. It is also recorded that he is suffering from chronic arthritis. Under ordinary circumstances, arthritis cannot be attributed to the injuries in a road accident. So with these materials let me fix the compensation. On account of the injury sustained, MACA 1673/2007 -:3:- he would have been prevented from doing any work for a period of two months and fixing the income at Rs.1,500/- I award him a compensation of Rs.3,000/- for two months. He was treated in the Government Hospital even then he would have purchased some medicines and therefore I grant him Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses. Considering the fact that there was a bystander I allow him Rs.750/- under that head. The accident had taken place in the year 1998 and he was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 10 days I award him Rs.7,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As I mentioned earlier, no percentage of disability is arrived at even by the Doctor. But, when a person sustained fracture on the scapula, that too at the age of 59, certainly it will cause him some difficulty and also there will be loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Taking into consideration the temporary disability and other factors, I grant him a compensation of Rs.7,000/- under that head. Thus the claimant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,750/-. 4.It can be seen that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1436 days and the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of paying interest during that period. So, from 22.9.2003 to 19.7.2007, the claimant will not be entitled to get any interest. Therefore, MACA is allowed and the claimant is awarded a sum of MACA 1673/2007 -:4:- Rs.18,750/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till 22.9.2003 and thereafter from 20.7.2007 till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-