S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Respondent No. 1, widow of deceased, filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation against respondent No. 2, the owner and appellant, the insurer. In this court, respondent No. 1 has entered appearance along with her minor children. However, the same would not create any difficulty in disposal of this appeal since the entire claim amount awarded is to be apportioned among them.
3. Case of claimant is that on 21.10.1986 deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. OSK 466. This vehicle dashed against a tree as a result of which deceased sustained fatal injuries. Claiming that the accident was on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, application has been filed for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Owner has accepted the fact of accident but claimed that there was no negligence in driving. It further asserted that the risk has been covered by the policy of insurance issued by the insurer. Insurer objected to its liability on the ground that deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the vehicle insured by it was APS 3736 and not OSK 466.
4. Trial court on consideration of the materials on record held that accident was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle and held that the deceased was an occupant and not a gratuitous passenger. It further held that registration number of the vehicle insured has subsequently been changed and, accordingly, policy issued in the previous registration number would cover the risk making the insurer liable for the compensation determined.
5. Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that on the materials on record, Tribunal ought to have held the deceased to be a gratuitous passenger and as such the policy would not cover risk in respect of such passenger. In case the policy would have been for a period before 25.3.1977 contention of Mr. P. Roy would have full support from two decisions of this court reported in Prabhudayal Agarwal v. Saraswati Bai 1975 ACJ 355 (Orissa) and Sushil Kumar v. Binodini Rath, AIR 1977 Orissa 112, where coming to the conclusion that unless special condition is incorporated in the policy, risk in respect of gratuitous passengers is not covered by a policy under Section 95 of the Act. However, the legal position has changed from 25.3.1977. On 13.3.1978, Tariff Advisory Committee which is a statutory body issued instruction to all insurers which are instrumentalities of the State requiring incorporation in the insurance policy in regard to mandatory liability of such insurers in respect of passengers in private cars. This has been considered by a decision of this court in the decision Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Sanatan Pradhan 1988 ACJ 792 (Orissa), where the two earlier decisions referred to above were also considered. In this decision, passengers carried in a jeep met with an accident. It was held that insurer is liable for the compensation payable in the claims in respect of injuries to the passengers of the jeep. In view of the latest decision of this court, contention of Mr. Roy has no force.
6. Mr. P. Roy vehemently contended that the insurance of the vehicle bearing registration No. APS 3736 would not cover risk of accident caused by OSK 466. Owner has produced evidence in this case to prove that this vehicle has been registered afresh in Orissa bearing registration No. OSK 466 during the period when the insurance was in force. Neither in the policy nor in the Act, there is any provision that change in the registration number of one State to another would require a fresh policy or would invalidate the policy already taken. If the owner would not have proved that the same vehicle in respect of which risk was covered on behalf of the same owner, matter might have been different. Insurance is a contract between owner and insurer. Change in the registration number does not change ownership of the vehicle. Accordingly, policy would continue to have force despite the fact that registration number has been changed. Contention of Mr. Roy has no force.
7. Third contention of Mr. Roy is that the policy covers period from 1.8.1986 to 31.7.1987. The vehicle has been registered in the name of the owner on 6.9.1986 and, accordingly, at the time when the policy was given, the vehicle did not belong to the owner. There is no evidence that the ownership had been changed during subsistence of the policy. It is clear that insurer has taken up liability of the owner on the date of accident. Contention of Mr. Roy in this regard is based on no material and is rejected.
8. In the result, all contentions of Mr. Roy having failed, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Being a nationalised organisation, I have no doubt that the insurer would discharge its liability within two months from today.