Judgment:
J.P. Singh, J.
1. Truck No. JKN 6487 owned by Raj Kumar, respondent No. 3 and driven by Madan Singh met with an accident on 22.1.1999 at Transport Nagar near Railway Station, Jammu when it collided with another vehicle standing on the road. Madan Singh suffered grievous injuries in the motor vehicular accident and later succumbed to the injuries in Government Medical College & Hospital, Jammu. He was 58 years of age at the time of his death and he was drawing an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month as wages from the owner of the truck. His widow Darshan Kaur filed a compensation claim before Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Jammu.
2. Bhupinder Singh had died during the pendency of the petition and it was his widow Manjeet Kaur who on being arrayed as party respondent had stated before the Commissioner that the vehicle had not been validly transferred by Raj Kumar in favour of her husband Bhupinder Singh. She had stated that as the vehicle had not been legally transferred to her husband so the liability to satisfy the claim of the legal heirs of deceased driver would be that of Raj Kumar, the registered owner of the vehicle.
3. Manjeet Kaur had also died during the pendency of the claim petition which was later prosecuted by her two sons.
4. The owner of the vehicle had opposed the claim on the ground that with the sale of his vehicle to one Bhupinder Singh, he would stand absolved of his liability to compensate the legal heirs of the driver of the vehicle.
5. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle, examined O.P. Dour as its witness who had admitted truck No. JKN 6487 to have been insured with the company from 2.1.1999 to 1.1.2000 and that under the insurance policy, the company was liable to indemnify Raj Kumar and his employee Bhupinder Singh. He had stated that Manjeet Kaur had never come to the company to have the truck insured and Bhupinder Singh was not thus covered by the insurance policy.
6. After considering the material placed on record by the parties, learned Commissioner came to the following conclusions:
(1) That admittedly, the deceased Madan Singh, was employed as a driver who on the fateful day of 22.1.1999, while driving the said vehicle No. JKN 6487, met with an accident owing to which he unfortunately died.
(2) That it is not disputed that deceased was getting Rs. 3,000 p.m. including trip money, etc.
(3) That admittedly, the vehicle in question was fully insured with the respondent No. 2, at the relevant time of accident, having the name of the insured (owner) as Raj Kumar, i.e., respondent No. 1.
(4) That it is also proved that respondent No. 1, had sold off the said truck to one Bhupinder Singh and after the death of Bhupinder Singh, his wife Manjeet Kaur, i.e., respondent No. 3, became owner of the said vehicle.
(5) That as per written objections filed by Raj Kumar, respondent No. 1, though he made a categoric submission that he sold the vehicle and delivered the possession of the same to Bhupinder Singh; but nowhere he mentioned that he ever applied to the R.T.O., Jammu, for transfer of registration certificate of the said vehicle to said Bhupinder Singh. That's why, the registration certificate as well as insurance policy carried the name of the owner (insured) as Raj Kumar because of non-transfer of said vehicle. Respondent No. 1, received consideration of Rs. 20,000 from the purchaser but he utterly failed to discharge his bona fide duties for transfer of registration certificate or for that matter to inform the respondent company. The insurance policy could have the name of new owner provided the seller (Raj Kumar) had duly applied to the R.T.O. for legal transfer of the vehicle.
(6) That under the insurance contract, the respondent No. 2 has only to see as to whether the vehicle was duly insured at the time of occurrence of accident irrespective of the fact that Mr. A or Mr. B is the insured owner of the vehicle. Had the vehicle aforesaid not been insured at the time of occurrence of accident, then the respondent No. 2, would have easily abandoned its liability; but converse is otherwise. Non-transfer of vehicle by the respondent No. 1, through the agency of R.T.O., Jammu, cannot in any manner disentitle the legal dependants of the deceased from compensation. For this reason, the respondent No. 2, is liable to indemnify the insured for the payment of compensation in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2, had accepted the premium of insurance for the period of occurrence of accident, i.e., 2.1.1999 to 1.1.2000. Once the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 2, the said respondent is liable to indemnify the insured. The non-disclosure of sale component by the respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, cannot help respondent No. 2, to escape from the liability to indemnification.
(7) That the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation in terms of death of their father. The widow of deceased had claimed compensation for her life and family. With the death of widow of the deceased, the claim of compensation does not extinguish and the petitioners being legal heirs of deceased are entitled to get compensation in terms of death of their deceased father.
(8) That as per post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was 60 years at the time of accident.
In view of the foregoing conclusions, an award for Rs. 1,17,410 as compensation is passed under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, read with Schedule IV of the said Act, along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 22.1.1999, in favour of the petitioners and against the insured owner. The respondent No. 2, being the insurer of the said vehicle is directed to indemnify the insured by the deposit of compensation amount aforesaid for disbursement to the petitioners.
No order as to costs is passed. After due completion file be consigned to records.
7. He accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 1,17,410 as compensation under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the accident in favour of the claimants and against the insured owner. Appellant insurance company had been called upon by the Commissioner to satisfy the award.
8. Aggrieved by the award, appellant insurance company has filed this appeal raising a question of law that relationship of master and servant between Raj Kumar and Madan Singh having ceased to operate because of transfer of vehicle by Raj Kumar in favour of Bhupinder Singh, insurance company was not liable to indemnify the transferee. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant refers to Pushpa v. Shakuntla , to support his submission.
9. Mr. Surinder Singh appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submits that accident having occurred during the currency of the insurance policy, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to satisfy the Commissioner's award and pay compensation amount to claimants whose interest as third party was secured under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment cited by appellant's counsel.
11. Learned Commissioner has recorded findings on fact that Madan Singh had been employed as driver with truck No. JKN 6487 when it had met with accident on 22.1.1999 and the vehicle stood insured with appellant insurance company covering the risk of the driver of the vehicle as well. He has further recorded that there was no valid transfer of the vehicle by Raj Kumar in favour of Bhupinder Singh. In view of these factual findings of the learned Commissioner, the appellant insurance company cannot, in my view, avoid its liability to satisfy the award made in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased driver in view of the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which would not permit it to question the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner that there was no valid transfer of vehicle by Raj Kumar in favour of Bhupinder Singh.
12. That apart, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , an insurance company cannot deny its liability to pay compensation to the victim or to his legal heirs. Judgment cited by learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case because in that case the original policy had ceased to operate and the accident had occurred during the currency of the new policy and in that view of the matter Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act would have no application to hold the erstwhile owner and his insurer liable to satisfy the claim.
13. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded and the award made by learned Commissioner. This appeal, therefore, lacks substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed.