Smt. Sugra Begum v. Ansar Ali & Ors whereby

Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and award dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Hardoi (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 258 of 2008 Inre; Smt. Sugra Begum Vs. Ansar Ali & Ors whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,31,930/- along with interest in favour of the claimant and has directed that the said amount shall be payable by the respondents no. 1 & 2 therein who are the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the said accident, of which the owner is the appellant herein.

3. The short controversy as involved in the instant appeal is as to whether the insurance policy, which had been issued for the vehicle involved in the accident and the said vehicle having been sold off at an earlier stretch of time, as to from which date the insurance policy would be applicable.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are that an accident is said to have occurred on 08.04.2008 involving a Tata Specio vehicle having Registration No. UP35 E 5001 in which the son of the claimant namely Sri Muniwur Rehman died.

5. The vehicle in question earlier belonged to one Smt. Mala Awasthi. Sri Ansar Ali had purchased the said vehicle on 02.04.2008. Admittedly, the said vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The accident occurred on 08.04.2008 which resulted in the death of the son of the claimant on 23.04.2008. The insurance policy has been transferred from the name of the erstwhile owner to the current owner namely Sri Ansar Ali on 10.04.2008.

6. The learned tribunal framed various issues of which issue no. 3 which has got relevance in the instant appeal is as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident.

7. The said issue has been answered by the learned tribunal by indicating that although the said vehicle was having an insurance for the period from 10.04.2008 to 07.12.2008 (which is said to be the remaining period of the insurance) yet as the accident took place on

08.04.2008 consequently, the accident is of a date prior to the said insurance and thus the vehicle cannot be said to be insured consequently, the liability to pay the compensation has been passed on to the current owner of the vehicle i.e the appellant herein.

8. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned tribunal has patently erred in law in giving the aforesaid finding without considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") which categorically provides that where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Placing reliance on the copy of the policy which has been filed as annexure 2 to the application for interim relief and which was filed as paper no. 22 Ga/22Ga/7, the contention is that a perusal of the said policy would indicate that the same was valid from 08.12.2007 to 07.12.2008. As the vehicle was sold off on 02.04.2008 and admittedly balance validity of the insurance was for the period from 10.04.2008 to 07.12.2008 accordingly, considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988, the said insurance would be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the appellant w.e.f 02.04.2008 and the accident having taken place on 08.04.2008, it would be deemed that the said vehicle was having an insurance on the date of accident which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned tribunal.

9. Elaborating, it is argued that once sub Section (1) of Section 157 of the Act, 1988 categorically provides that the insurance would be deemed to be transferred w.e.f the date of transfer of the vehicle, and in this case the vehicle had been purchased on 02.04.2008 consequently, even the insurance would be deemed to have been transferred and thus the vehicle was insured on 02.04.2008 taking into consideration the deeming provision as provided under sub Section (1) of Section 157 of the Act, 1988.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the applicability of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 08.04.2008. The vehicle in question earlier belonged to one Smt. Mala Awasthi from which the current owner namely Sri Ansar Ali purchased it on 02.04.2008. Admittedly, the balance insurance was valid upto 07.12.2008 having commenced on

08.12.2007. In terms of Section 157 of the Act, 1988 upon transfer of the vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in certificate would also be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f the date of its transfer. The date of transfer i.e 02.04.2008 is not disputed by either of the parties. The date of accident is 08.04.2008. Thus, it is apparent that the learned tribunal has patently erred in holding that on the date of the accident i.e 08.04.2008, there was no valid insurance and the said finding has been arrived at without considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988. (See:- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Ors- (2011) 8 SCC 142).

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned tribunal dated 14.12.2012 to the extent it directs for payment of the awarded amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2 is set aside.

13. It is provided that the claimant would be entitled for being paid the amount of compensation from the insurance company i.e the respondent no. 6.

14. Let the learned trial Court record be returned back as per procedure. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and award dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Hardoi (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 258 of 2008 Inre; Smt. Sugra Begum Vs. Ansar Ali & Ors whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,31,930/- along with interest in favour of the claimant and has directed that the said amount shall be payable by the respondents no. 1 & 2 therein who are the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the said accident, of which the owner is the appellant herein.

3. The short controversy as involved in the instant appeal is as to whether the insurance policy, which had been issued for the vehicle involved in the accident and the said vehicle having been sold off at an earlier stretch of time, as to from which date the insurance policy would be applicable.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are that an accident is said to have occurred on 08.04.2008 involving a Tata Specio vehicle having Registration No. UP35 E 5001 in which the son of the claimant namely Sri Muniwur Rehman died.

5. The vehicle in question earlier belonged to one Smt. Mala Awasthi. Sri Ansar Ali had purchased the said vehicle on 02.04.2008. Admittedly, the said vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The accident occurred on 08.04.2008 which resulted in the death of the son of the claimant on 23.04.2008. The insurance policy has been transferred from the name of the erstwhile owner to the current owner namely Sri Ansar Ali on 10.04.2008.

6. The learned tribunal framed various issues of which issue no. 3 which has got relevance in the instant appeal is as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident.

7. The said issue has been answered by the learned tribunal by indicating that although the said vehicle was having an insurance for the period from 10.04.2008 to 07.12.2008 (which is said to be the remaining period of the insurance) yet as the accident took place on

08.04.2008 consequently, the accident is of a date prior to the said insurance and thus the vehicle cannot be said to be insured consequently, the liability to pay the compensation has been passed on to the current owner of the vehicle i.e the appellant herein.

8. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned tribunal has patently erred in law in giving the aforesaid finding without considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") which categorically provides that where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Placing reliance on the copy of the policy which has been filed as annexure 2 to the application for interim relief and which was filed as paper no. 22 Ga/22Ga/7, the contention is that a perusal of the said policy would indicate that the same was valid from 08.12.2007 to 07.12.2008. As the vehicle was sold off on 02.04.2008 and admittedly balance validity of the insurance was for the period from 10.04.2008 to 07.12.2008 accordingly, considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988, the said insurance would be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the appellant w.e.f 02.04.2008 and the accident having taken place on 08.04.2008, it would be deemed that the said vehicle was having an insurance on the date of accident which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned tribunal.

9. Elaborating, it is argued that once sub Section (1) of Section 157 of the Act, 1988 categorically provides that the insurance would be deemed to be transferred w.e.f the date of transfer of the vehicle, and in this case the vehicle had been purchased on 02.04.2008 consequently, even the insurance would be deemed to have been transferred and thus the vehicle was insured on 02.04.2008 taking into consideration the deeming provision as provided under sub Section (1) of Section 157 of the Act, 1988.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the applicability of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 08.04.2008. The vehicle in question earlier belonged to one Smt. Mala Awasthi from which the current owner namely Sri Ansar Ali purchased it on 02.04.2008. Admittedly, the balance insurance was valid upto 07.12.2008 having commenced on

08.12.2007. In terms of Section 157 of the Act, 1988 upon transfer of the vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in certificate would also be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f the date of its transfer. The date of transfer i.e 02.04.2008 is not disputed by either of the parties. The date of accident is 08.04.2008. Thus, it is apparent that the learned tribunal has patently erred in holding that on the date of the accident i.e 08.04.2008, there was no valid insurance and the said finding has been arrived at without considering the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1988. (See:- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Ors- (2011) 8 SCC 142).

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned tribunal dated 14.12.2012 to the extent it directs for payment of the awarded amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2 is set aside.

13. It is provided that the claimant would be entitled for being paid the amount of compensation from the insurance company i.e the respondent no. 6.

14. Let the learned trial Court record be returned back as per procedure. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench