Udabhai Ramabhai Parmar vs Sabdarali Abbasali Saiyed and Others

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for appellant original claimant and Mr. SS Gade, learned Advocate for respondent insurance company. Respondents No. 1,2 and 4 have been served but they have not appeared before this Court either in person or through an advocate, therefore, this being an old matter, has been taken up for final hearing.

By filing this appeal, appellant-original claimant has challenged award made by motor accident claims tribunal, Baroda in MACP No. 705/86 Exh. 74 wherein claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,500.00 with 12 per cent interest thereon in favour of appellant and against opponent No. 1 and 4 while exonerating opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 3 National Insurance Co. Therefore, appellant has, by filing this appeal has prayed for enhancement thereof and for modification thereof in so far it relates to exoneration of opponent No. 3 National Insurance Co. by declaring that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimant.

Learned Advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for appellant claimant has raised contention that award of Rs. 7500.00 made by claims tribunal on head of mental pain, shock and suffering is not just, proper and reasonable as inadequate and claims tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 15000.00 on said head, meaning thereby, claimant ought to have been awarded Rs. 7500.00 more on head of mental pain, shock and suffering and award is required to be modified to that effect as per his submission. He also submitted that claims tribunal has also committed an error in exonerating opponent No. 3 National Insurance Co. though vehicle involved in accident was insured with it and accident had taken place during period of insurance as per policy of insurance.

As against that, learned Advocate Mr. Gade appearing for respondent insurance company has submitted that award made by claims tribunal on head of mental pain, shock and suffering of Rs. 7500.00 is just, proper and reasonable and does not require any interference of this Court. He also submitted that vehicle in question was sold by opponent No. 2 registered owner on 19.10.1985 in whose name vehicle in question was insured and thereafter, accident had taken place on 7.11.1985 i.e. after transfer of vehicle on 19.10.1985 and neither original owner nor person in whose favour vehicle was transferred had intimated insurance company within period stipulated and, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, claims tribunal has rightly exonerated insurance company from indemnifying owner by making payment of compensation to claimant. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Gade before this Court and no decision was cited by him before this Court in support of submissions recorded hereinabove.

I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates. I have also perused award in question. Claimant Petition was filed by claimant Udabhai Ramabhai Parmar against opponent No. 1 driver of offending vehicle, opponent No. 2 Vishwakarma Engineering Works at Barejadi post Nandej, District Ahmedabad and opponent No. 3 insurance company with which vehicle involved in accident namely truck No. GTG 3098 was insured. Said vehicle involved in question was purchased by opponent No. 4 Pravinbhai. On 7.11.85, at about 7.00 a.m., claimant was going on bicycle from Rayaka village towards Nandesari for his service. At that time, at about 7.30 a.m., when he was trying to cross road, while going very slow, at that time, from Baroda Vasad side, truck bearing No. GTG 3098 had come which was being driven rashly and negligently, in excessive speed and dashed with claimant''s cycle from right side of truck wherein claimant had fallen down with his cycle and rear wheel of truck has ran over leg of claimant and he had sustained injuries on various parts of body and, therefore, based upon said facts, claim petition was filed by claimant claiming total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- from opponents. During pendency of claim petition, application Exh. 20 was filed by claimant for adding Pravinbhai Shankarbhai purchaser of vehicle in question as necessary party respondent which was allowed and accordingly said Pravinbhai Shankarbhai was joined as party opponent No. 4 to claim petition.

Before claims tribunal, reply was filed by insurance company at Exh. 18 wherein it was stated that opponent No. 2 was not the owner of vehicle in question on date of accident and said owner had sold vehicle on 19.10.85 to opponent No. 4 and accident had taken place on 7.11.85, therefore, at time of accident, oponent No. 2 was not owner of said vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to claimant since insurance policy of motor vehicle lapses on sale or transfer of insured vehicle and, therefore, insurance company was praying for dismissing claim petition against it.

Issues were framed by claims tribunal at Exh. 23 and thereafter, application was given by insurance company opponent No. 3 at Exh. 25 for adding issue whether opponent No. 3 is liable as insurer for payment of compensation in view of transfer of involved vehicle. Said application was allowed by claims tribunal on 16.6.93 and " whether opponent No. 3 is liable as insurer for payment of compensation in view of transfer of involved vehicle ?" was framed as issue No. 2(A). Issue No. 1 was about rash and negligent driving of truck involved in accident by opponent No. 1 which was answered by claims tribunal in affirmative. Issue No. 2 was regarding quantum wherein claims tribunal held that claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 15500.00 from opponent No. 1 and 4 and then claims tribunal held in answer to issue No. 2(A) that opponent No. 3 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to claimant and thereby exonerated insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to claimant by indemnifying opponent No. 2. Considering submissions made by both learned Advocates, this Court has to examine whether award of Rs. 7500.00 on the head of mental pain, shock and suffering is just, proper and reasonable or not and whether the claims tribunal is justified in answering issue No. 2(A) that opponent No. 3 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to claimant.

Considering impugned award on head of mental pain, shock and suffering, looking to injury suffered by claimant and medicines which were applied to claimant and also considering submissions made by both learned advocates on this point, according to my opinion, Rs. 7500.00 on this count, as awarded by claims tribunal cannot be considered to be reasonable and just amount and claimant is entitled total Rs. 15000.00 on this count instead of Rs. 7500.00 and, thus, is entitled for additional amount of Rs. 7500.00 on this count, towards mental pain, shock and suffering with interest thereon as awarded by claims tribunal.

In issue No. 2(A), considered at para 8 of award, claims tribunal has examined whether opponent No. 3 insurance company is liable as an insurer for payment of compensation in view of transfer of involved vehicle or not. Learned Advocate Mr. Gade appearing for insurance company has raised contention that Shri Vishwakarma Engineering Works, opponent No. 2 had transferred vehicle involved in accident to opponent No. 4 and on date of accident, opponent No. 2 who had got insured the vehicle in question was not registered owner of said vehicle and such transfer of said vehicle was not intimated either by earlier registered owner or by subsequent owner respondent No. 4 which amounts to breach of terms and conditions of policy, claims tribunal has rightly exonerated insurance company from liability to compensate claimant by indemnifying owner of vehicle. Except that, no other submission is made by learned Advocate Mr. Gade and no decision has been cited by him in support of said contention. As against that, learned Advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for claimant submits that insurance obtained by earlier owner was that of vehicle in question and date of accident is covered by period as per policy. He submits that insurance of vehicle goes with vehicle and not with owner and, therefore, it is irrelevant whether insurance company was intimated or not. He submits that for that, claimant who is a third party cannot be made to suffer and, therefore, that part of impugned award is required to be modified by holding that opponent No. 3 is liable as an insurer for payment of compensation. He also submits that premium was collected by insurance company in respect of vehicle in question and, therefore, claimant who is a third party should not suffer on such technical ground. He submits that insurance policy always goes with the vehicle. SO long vehicle remains, owner may be changed but obligations as registered owner arising from such policy of insurance must have to be complied with and honoured by the insurance company. The vehicle remained in name of respondent No. 2.

I have considered impugned award and the submissions made by both learned advocates on this issue. This aspect is considered by claims tribunal in para 8, from page 9 upto page 20. Same is, therefore, reproduced as under:

The opponent No. 3 Insurance Company has examined Bhaskarbhai Rasikbhai at Exh. 47 who is working as a junior clerk in RTO Ahmedabad. He has produced the information from the Register at Exh. 48 which shows that on 17.10.84 partner of Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works is his owner. He has produced copy of the tax card at Exh. 49. Said witness has deposed in cross examination that since last 20 years, he is doing the work of transfer of vehicle. In exh. 48 there is no mention that vehicle GTH 3098 was transferred from Vishwakarma Engineering works to who and in exh. 48 the owner of the vehicle is shown as Vishwakarma Engineering works and as per exh. 48 and exh. 49 upto 17.10.84, the ownership is of Vishwakarma Engineering works. The opponents have examined Raghuvirsharan Laxmandas Diwan at exh. 55 has deposed on oath that he is one of the partners of Vishwakarma Engineering works and they were the owner of the truck No. GTG 3098 and have sold for Rs. 45000.00. He has produced the delivery note dated 19.10.8t at Exh. 56 He has also produced delivery note dated 19.10.8t at Exh. 57. He has also produced the true copy of NOC at Exh. 58 which states the owner of truck No. GTH 3098 has got NOC of the said truck on 18.10.85. He has further deposed that on 19.10.85, he has informed the Insurance Company regarding the transfer by ordinary letter. He has deposed in cross examination that the opponent No. 2 has sent the documents along with exh. 54 to insurance co. He has applied to competent authority to change and transfer the name of the purchaser. The opponent Pravinbhai has filed purshis exh.66 in which he has stated that he does not want to adduce any evidence and time for further hearing h as prayed which was granted. Hence, in instant case, the opponent No. 4 Pravinbhai Shankerbhai has not stepped in the witness box to controvert the contention of the petitioner. The opponent No. 3 has also examined Raghuvir Sharan Laxmandas at Exh. 55 who is one of the partner of Vishwakarma Engineering works. He has deposed that the said firm was the owner of the vehicle No. GTH 3098 till 18.10.95. Thereafter, on 19.10.95, said vehicle was sold to Pravinbhai for worth of Rs. 45000.00. He has produced money receipt at exh. 56 in which he has stated that Vishwakarma Engineering works has received Rs. 45000.00 cash for the sale of truck No. GTH 3098 The receipt is dated 19.10.85. He has further deposed that Pravinbhai has received the delivery and for the said purpose, he has executed a delivery note. The true copy of which is produced at Exh. 57. He has also produced the true copy of NA Permission of truck No. GTG 3098 issued by RTO Ahmedabad. He has further deposed that he is insurer and has sent a simple letter to the Insurance Co. for the purpose of ownershikp but he has no copy of the said letter. This witness has produced the money receipt at Exh. 56 which clearly proves the fact that the questioned truck is sold to Pravinbhai Shankarbhai of Kanjari, Taluka Nadiad District Kheda for the value of Rs. 45000/-. The copy of the delivery note exh. 57 discloses that opponent No. 4 Pravinbhai has stated that on 19.10.85 he has taken delivery note of truck No. GTH 3098 from Vishwakarma Engineering works in good condition and he has received the necessary document and instruments and if from today there will be traffic case or there would be an accident, then, said Pravinbhai is liable for the same from today. This document Exh. 57 proves that the opponent No. 4 has accepted that from 19.10.85 he will be liable for any accident if it would be caused by questioned truck. The true copy of NA Permission exh.58 also discloses that he has obtained NA Permission on 18.10.85 from RTO Ahmedabad. It emerges from the evidence of Purshottam Jivabhai at exh. 42 that the questioned vehicle was transferred before accident and neither vendee nor vender has informed regarding the transfer of the vehicle. As they have to inform to the Insurance company within 14 days from the date of sale of the vehicle but till today the purchaser has not informed to the Insurance Company for the said transfer which also proves the fact that as per above stated documents though the opponent No. 4 has executed the delivery note and acceptance liability of the future accident even though the opponent No. 4 has not informed the Insurance Co. opponent No. 3 which proves the fact that in the instant case, the purchaser opponent No. 4 has not given any intimation of the transfer of the vehicle to the insurance company opponent No. 3. Opponent No. 2 has produced the insurance policy at exh. 43 which shows that the name of the owner is shown as Vishwakarma Engineering works and number of vehicle is shown as GTH 3098 and the validity period of the policy is from 26.12.84 to 25.12.85. The accident has occurred on 7.11.85 which proves the fact that on the date of accident, the policy of the opponent No. 3 was existing Mis. Raksha J. Mehta, learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that in the instant case the opponent No. 4 who is a purchaser is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In support of this submission, Miss Mehta has cited a case of Madinenni Kodaiah and Ors. v. Yaseen Fatima and Ors. reported in 1986 ACJ 1 in which the full bench of AP High Court has held that:

If "A" sold vehicle to "B" and both failed to inform the insurance company or the registering authority for transfer of policy and vehicle respectively, accident occurred in the meantime. Even though the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

This full bench has held that though the insurance company is not informed regarding the transfer of vehicle even though the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

Miss Mehta has also cited a case of United India Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Heirs and legal representatives of deceased Narendrakumar Devshi and Ors. reported in 1987 ACJ 511. in the said authority, there was an agreement to transfer the vehicle but neither actual transfrer of vehicle established nor records of RTO show any transfer. Under such circumstances, insurance company held liable to pay the compensation. So, in this authority, there was no actual transfer there was only agreement to sale the vehicle Therefore, it was held that insurance company is liable. In this case there is complete transfer and opponent No. 4 has taken undertaking that he will be liable for the accident after the date of purchase of the questioned vehicle so with great respect the facts of said authority is not helpful to the instant case.

Miss Mehta the learned advocate for the opponent No. 4 has also cited a case of Santosh Rani and Anr. v. Sheela Rani and Anr. reported in (1987) ACJ 134 in which it is held by the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court that;

(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 96(2) Liability of insurer-Accident on 10.5.1977-Vehicle originally owned by Dwarka Prasad but it was sold to Santosh Rani-vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. and the policy was valid upto 15.6.1977-Insurance Company pleaded it had no contractual liability to indemnify Santosh Rani-Tribunal decided against the insurance Company-Vehicle was sold on 18.6.1976-Transferred on 24.7.1976-Appeal against the judgment-Whether Insurance Co. liable-Yes.

The opponent No. 4 has cited a case of M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., The fact of the said authority are stated in para 1 as under:

A Maruti car with in the name of Archana Wadhwa for registration No. CHK 9253 was purchased which the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd., had issued a comprehensive insurance policy. The premium for the insurance was paid by the appellant company in whose favour the car was transferred. The registration of the car was transferred to the appellant on 15.6.1989. On 26.6.1989, the appellant intimated the transfer of registration and asked for transfer of the insurance policy. A reminder was sent on 24.7.1989. The respondent did not reply to the two letters. On 17.9.1989, the car met with a serious accident in which the Managing Director of the appellant suffered serious injuries and his sister died. On 11.10.1989 the appellant asked for the assessment of the damage as the car was a total loss. The respondent did not respond. A reminder dated 26.12.1989 met the same fate. The appellant got a notice issue to which the respondent replied that the appellant had no insurable interest in the car. The appellant filed the complaint before the consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which directed the respondent to pay Rs. 83,000/- i.e. The insured value of the vehicle, as the vehicle was a total loss, along with costs and interest. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the Commissioner at Chandigarh, dismissed the complaint and granted costs of appeal.

In the said authority, the transfer was informed to the Insurance company even though the Insurance Company has not taken any step to include the name of the purchaser. Moreover, there was a damage to the vehicle and no injury to the Third part. Miss Raksha learned Advocate vehemently relied upon para 17 of the said autority but considering the said para it emerges that the important part of 1986 ACJ 1 of AP have been given in said para. So, there is no pronouncement of Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 7 of this authority. So this para 7 is not helpful to the opponent No. 4. Considering the facts and principle laid down in the above said authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court it is not helpful to the present opponent No. 4. The opponent No. 4 has also cited a case of Ramaiah Setty Vs. Meena, in which the Hon''ble Karnataka High Court has held that;

Vehicle was transferred two years before the accident but the registration was not got transferred in the name of the transferee and the vehicle stood registered in the name of the transferor on the date of accident. In that event it is held that the registered owner is the only owner is responsible.

Against this judgment it is held by the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiraben Mangabhai and Others Vs. Maganbhai Somabhai and Others, that it is held that;

Evidence-Owner-Liability of transferee-owner-RTO-record revealed that the vehicle was registered in the name of transferor-Transferor disclosed that the vehicle was sold by public auction much prior to the date of accident and necessary papers were handed over to the purchaser at the time of giving delivery of the vehicle-purchaser has been shifting his stand-He admitted that the vehicle was with him and was under his control but being not in working condition was lying in a garage-He denied ownership during examination but his stand was shaken considerably in cross examination-Tribunal held that ownership of the vehicle was not proved and dismissed the claim application-Whether the purchaser was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and he is vicariously liable-Held : Yes.

Considering the said principle in the instant case , the opponent No. 1 has full control upon the questioned vehicle. Therefore, the opponent No. 4 who is purchaser and owner of the questioned truck is liable to pay the compensation. So, this authority of Hiraben Mangabhai and Others Vs. Maganbhai Somabhai and Others, cited by opponent No. 4 is not helpful.

The learned advocate for the opponent No. 3. Has cited a case of Shantilal Mohanlal and Anr. v. Aher Bawanji Malde and Ors. reported in 1985 ACJ 505 in which full bench of the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court has held that;

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 96-Motor Insurance-Trnsfer of vehicle-Ownership of truck was transferred on 2.3.1978 which met with an accident on 5.3.1978-Neither any intimation of the transfer was given to the insurer nor its consent obtained-change of ownership notified to the insurer after the accident and the policy become effective infavour of the transferee on 15.5.1978-whether insurer is entitled to avoid liability against third party risk on the plea that the insured had sold the vehicle covered by the insurance policy before the date of accident wihtout intimation to the insurer-Held; yes, three being no subsisting contract between the insurance company and the trnsferee, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the transferee and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to recover any compensation from the insurance company.

Considering the said principle which is decided by full Bench of Hon''ble Gujarat High Court in the instant case also, the purchaser who has not informed to the insurance company regarding the transfer therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the insurer and only purchaser is liable to pay the compensation. this judgment is being full Bench Judgment the judgment of Hon''ble AP High Court which is reported in AP 1986 ACJ is not helpful to the opponent No. 4. The opponent No. 4 has cited a case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla and Others, by Hon''ble HP High Court in which it is held that;

Insurance company can take up the defence that its liability ceases on transfer of vehicle by the insured and it is not liable to pay the compensation.

He has also cited a case of Avtar Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur and Others, by Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in which it is held that "no intimation was received by the insurance company regarding transfer of vehicle. Policy continued to be in the name of transfer or when the accident occurred. In such circumstances, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to insured."

The opponent No. 3 has also cited a case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mayadhar Pal and Others, in which Hon''ble Orissa High Court at Cuttak has held that.

If Insurance Company is not informed regarding the transfer of vehicle then insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the insured.

The opponent No. 3 has also cited a case of National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mallikarjun and Ors. reported in 1990 ACJ 658 in which Full Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that;

Insurance company is not liable to answer the liability arising out of accident occurred after the transfer of ownership of the vehicle but during the period for which the insurance policy was issued and further held that before the date of accident without intimation to the insurer, the insured has no longer any insurable interest to which the policy in his favour can relate and continue to have force.

Considering this Full Bench of Hon''ble Karnataka High Court also, the present opponent Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

The opponent No. 3 has also cited a case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Top Bahadur and Others, in which Hon''ble HP High Court has held that;

The vehicle was transferred before the date of accident but the parties did not apply to the insurance company for transfer or certificate of insurance. In such circumstances, insurance company is not liable as there existed to privity of contract between the insurance company and the transferee.

The opponent No. 3 has also cited a case of Rikhi and Another Vs. Smt. Sukhrania and Others, in which the Division Bench of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that

Motor cycle was transferred by the insured prior to the date of accident no evidence that the insured had intimated the fact of transfer of vehicle to the insurance company. Under these circumstances, insurance company is absolved from liability.

The opponent No. 4 has cited Full Bench judgment of Hon''ble AP High Court but against the said judgment there is Full Bench of Hon''ble Gujarat High Court and Hon''ble Karnataka High Court who have held that if the transfer is not intimated to the insurance company, then, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the injure Applying the said principle in the instant case, in the instant case also, the opponent No. 4 has not proved by producing cogent documentary evidence that he has intimated to the opponent No. 3 Insurance Company regarding the transfer of the insured vehicle, therefore, the opponent No. 4 Pravinbhai Shankarbhai is only liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence in the instant case, the opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 3 are not liable to pay any compensation to the present petitioner, therefore, they are exonerated for paying any compensation to the petitioners the opponent No. 1 Sabdarali Abbasali was the driver of the questioned truck therefore he is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and as per the above discussion, the opponent No. 4 Pravinbhai Shankarbhai who is the owner of questioned truck is also liable to pay the compensation for the wrongful act done by his driver opponent No. 1. Hence the opponents Nos. 1 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15500.00 to the petitioner. Hence issue No. 2 and 2(a) are answered accordingly.

Thus, on basis of aforesaid discussion, claims tribunal exonerated insurance company from liability to pay compensation to claimant.

Recently, this aspect has been considered by this Court in First Appeal No. 329/98 with First Appeal No. 330 to 334 of 1998 on 11.6.2007. In said decision, appeals were filed by insurance company with a plea that Tribunal could not have fastened the liability to Insurance Company, when the vehicle was transferred by owner to other person. He submitted that date of accident is 21.1.1997 and prior that to, the vehicle was transferred by registered owner to other person party and, therefore, Tribunal has committed error in passing award against Insurance Company and hence, award passed by Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. While negativing said contention and dismissing said appeals, this Court observed as under in para 4 to 7:

On behalf of the original claimant as well as the driver and owner of the vehicle, it has been contended that as such no such contention was raised before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company and it has been further submitted that even if such contention is to be permitted, then also the matter is governed by the decision of the Apex Court in case of " United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, and more particularly in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It has been submitted that as the law is settled by the Apex Court, the contention cannot be accepted and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

5.It deserves to be recorded that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "United India Insurance Company Limited, Shimla (supra), the Apex Court, examining the very contention, has, inter alia, observed at para 13 as under:

Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether u/s 103-A of the 1939 Act or u/s 157 of the 1988 Act in so far as the liability towards a third party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the tribunal.

It may be record that in the said decision, the Apex Court relied upon its earlier decision in case of "Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Sukhrania (Smt.) and Ors." reported in 2003 SCC 97 and also upon its another decision in case of "G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1993 (3) SCC 754, holding that the liability of the insurer does not cease even if the owner or the purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the insurance company, as the purpose of the legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the contention of the appellants for avoiding or repudiating the liability cannot be accepted on the mere ground that there was no intimation to the Insurance Company or that the transfer was not effected with the concerned authority.

In view of the aforesaid discussion made by this Court after considering decisions as referred to therein, and also in light of the facts of the present case, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has committed an error in exonerating insurance company from the liability to pay compensation to claimant on such a ground. According to my opinion, claimant who is a third party cannot be made to suffer and insurance company which has pocketed premium in respect of the truck involved in accident cannot be exonerated in such a situation considering aforesaid decision of this Court. It is more so when the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle involved in accident is covering the date of accident. Therefore, that part of the award is also required to be modified by holding that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimant. Therefore, this appeal is required to be partly allowed subject to above discussion.

In view of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. Insurance Company namely National Insurance Co. Ltd. is held to be responsible to pay compensation to claimant with interest thereon at rate of 12 per cent per annum. Therefore, it is directed to respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company to deposit entire awarded amount, including additional amount of Rs. 7500.00, total of which comes to Rs. 23000.00 (Rs. 15500.00 awarded by claims tribunal + Rs. 7500.00 awarded by this Court on head of mental pain, shock and suffering) with interest thereon at rate of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by claims tribunal before concerned claims tribunal within two months from date of receipt of copy of this order. As and when such entire amount is realized by claims tribunal, it is directed to claims tribunal to pay entire amount together with costs and interest to appellant claimant by way of an account payee cheque after due verification. Award made by claims tribunal stands modified accordingly and this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.