Smt. Shanti Kaur & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1999)3 SCC 754 dealing with Section 103-A & Ors.

Smt. Shanti Kaur widow of Harbhajan Singh son of Gurdit Singh, r/o village Jamastpur Post office Taran Taran District Amritsar and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. PS Rana, Advocate, for respondents/cross-objectors 1 to 4. Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent 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)

The only point involved in the appeal is the liability of the insurance company for a claim arising out of an accident where the insured had transferred the vehicle and the fact of transfer was not informed to the insurer. It is an admitted case that the accident had taken place during the currency of FAO No.969 of 1991(O&M) [2] the policy. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 makes a deemed transfer of insurance and it was to quell the doubt that existed under Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A Bench of the Supreme Court held in Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1999)3 SCC 754 dealing with Section 103-A held that the insurer shall be liable notwithstanding the transfer of policy of insurance and the judgment was followed by three Judges Bench in Rikhi Ram and another v. Sukhrania (Smt.) and others (2003)3 SCC 97. The award excluding the liability of the insurer is erroneous and hence modified. The insurer is wholly liable and shall be bound to indemnify the insured and the subsequent transferee as well.

There is cross objection for enhancement of claim by the claimant. The deceased was 40 years of age and he was said to be a professional driver earning `1650/-. The Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at `1150/- and after making a deduction for personal expenses, took the contribution to the family at `900/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the cross-objector states that he was supporting a large family of wife and four minor children and the deduction could have been 1/4th in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. I would accede to the contention and apply 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and take the contribution to FAO No.969 of 1991(O&M) [3] the family at `1237.50. I would adopt a multiplier of 15 and take the loss of dependency at `2,22,750/-. I would provide for further sum of `5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and make a further provision of `10,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the four minor children. Adding a sum of `5,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the total amount of compensation will be `2,42,750/-. The amount in addition to what has been already determined by the Tribunal will also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment.

In view of the decision in the appeal casting the liability on the insurer, the amount now assessed shall also be recoverable against the insurance company only. The apportionment of the amount shall be in the same manner as found by the Tribunal.

The appeal as well as the cross-objection is allowed to the above extent. 2nd November, 2012 Rajan ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE