IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3972 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:16.09.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sheela Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability cast under the award where the deceased was travelling in the insured's vehicle having hired the same along with the others to go to a marriage party. There are two contentions raised: (i) the insured was Santosh Kumar and the vehicle was purported to have been transferred in the name of Maya Ram. Although the vehicle had been transferred, the registration stood in the name of the insured and the case could not have been prosecuted without bringing on record the insured also as one of the parties; (ii) that the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms of the FAO No.3972 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - policy by using the vehicle for hire when it was insured only as a private vehicle. 2. As regards the contention that the case must only fail on account of non-impleadment of the insured, I am of the view that it is only technical and it cannot affect the rights of the claimants and an insured is invariably a necessary party in a situation where the insured is also the owner of the vehicle. If the insured/owner had admittedly transferred the vehicle to yet another person by virtue of the Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it operates as a deemed transfer of insurance and in such a situation, the fact that the insured, who was the previous owner, was not impleaded, shall not be of any relevance. The transfer of registration itself is only for a purpose of the Act but the title to the vehicle is transferred by delivery on payment. If the ownership is seen through evidence as having been transferred to the first respondent in the claim petition, then it must be taken by virtue of Section 157 that the deemed transfer of licence shall have the effect of recreating a situation of treating the transferee as the insured himself. There is therefore no defect in lodging the petition only against the subsequent transferee and the insurer. 3. As regards the violation of terms of the policy even the averments in the petition reads that the vehicle had been taken on hire. The Tribunal had found under issue No.3 that if there is a violation of any terms, it can recover the amount from the insured. The Tribunal found that there was such violation through the admission of the claimants themselves. In view of the vague expression found in the FAO No.3972 of 2002 (O&M) - 3 - award, I clarify that it should be taken that the insured/purchaser namely Maya Ram was liable and the right of recovery for the insurer shall obtain against the transferee by virtue of the deemed transfer under Section 157 of the MV Act. 4. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to provide for a right of recovery in the manner referred to above. 5. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.09.2010 sanjeev