Harphul Singh Brar, J.@mdashA claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was filed by Manjit Kaur, widow of Harbail Singh (deceased), Jasbir Kaur, Sarbjit Kaur, Amandip Kaur, kawal Deep Kaur, daughters of Harbail Singh and Bhupinder Singh, minor son of Harbail Singh, as well as by Basant Kaur, mother of deceased Harbail Singh, against Avtar Singh, son of Hazura Singh, owner and driver of 3-wheeler with which the accident took place and National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jalandhar City.
2. After going through the evidence on the file, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called ''the Tribunal'') held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of driving on the part of Avtar Singh, Respondent No. 1, and that Harbail Singh died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3-wheeler No. PAQ 3146 by respondent Avtar Singh.It, thus, awarded suitable compensation to the claimants. However, it held Avtar Singh, Respondent No. 1, as liable to pay the amount of compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that this case is being dealt with under the old Act. After going through the evidence on the file, we do not find any reason to set aside the verdict of the Tribunal so faras fixing the liability on Avtar Singh, Respondent No. 1, is concerned.
4. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, had taken up specific plea that the 3-wheeler, i.e. auto-rickshaw No. KKT 5879 was insured with the Insurance Company vide Exh. R-1 and it was in the ownership of Madan Singh. No intimation was received by the Insurance Company to the effect that Madan Singh had sold the vehicle in question in favour of Avtar Singh. This is further fortified from the file as Avtar Singh, Respondent No. 1, had himself admitted in cross-examination that the Insurance Policy was in the name of Madan Singh of Jammu, which is Exh. R-1, and he had not written any letter to the Insurance Company for the transfer of the policy in his name and he was not in possession of any other letter or any other policy issued by Respondent No. 1 in his favour. He also admitted it to be correct that Exh. R-1 related to auto-rickshaw No. KKT 5879 and he was in possession of a 3-wheeler No. PAQ 3146 (new number) for the last three years. He further stated that he did not know if Madan Singh had filed any affidavit before the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar, about the transfer of the vehicle. In these circumstances, unless the Insurance Company is informed about the transfer or sale of the vehicle in question by the original owner in favour of the subsequent purchaser, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
5. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed as such.
6. Cross-objection has also been filed Under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the respondents-claimants in the appeal.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel, we do not find any ground for enhancement of the compensation but we allow the prayer to the extent that the interest will be awarded from the date of the application instead of from the date of the award till realisation. The cross-objection is allowed to this extent only.
