IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.929 of 1989(O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2011 Maya Ram and another ....Appellants versus Rajinder Parshad and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Rajdeep Singh Tacoria, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents 2 and 3. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is by the owner/transferee of the vehicle challenging the liability cast on it for a claim arising in an accident on the ground that there was admittedly a valid policy of insurance at the relevant time of the accident in the name of his transferor and the fact that there was no transfer of policy ought not to have been taken as a ground for exonerating the Insurance Company. This point is now stated FAO No.929 of 1989(O&M) - 2 - with the law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Govindan Versus New India Assurance Company Limited-1999(2) PLR 274 that has found that in terms of Section 103 though there is a requirement of the subsequent transferee to inform the insurer about the transfer, a third party cannot suffer on account of non-fulfillment of such a formality. The exoneration of the Insurance Company was, therefore, not justified and I would hold that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the claim arising out of the accident. 2. The award is modified and the Insurance Company for the vehicle involved in the accident, which is arrayed as the 5th respondent in the appeal, is made liable for the same. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.02.2011 sanjeev