Transferred vehicle insurance lapses without policy transfer; liability is apportioned for contributory negligence and compensation may be enhanced.

A transferred motor vehicle does not keep the original insurance policy alive unless the policy is transferred in the prescribed manner or a fresh contract is obtained; absent notice to the insurer and compliance with Section 103A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the transferee. The Court also treated the accident as involving contributory negligence, fixing liability at 60 per cent on the bus driver and 40 per cent on the lorry driver. On compensation, the award in one claim was enhanced because the original amount was inadequate in light of burn injuries, hospitalisation and loss of an academic year, while the other award was left undisturbed as reasonable on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the insurance policy covering the lorry lapsed on transfer of the vehicle and whether the insurer remained liable to indemnify the transferee, (ii) whether the accident was due to negligence of both drivers and the extent of apportionment of liability between them, and (iii) whether the compensation awarded in the two claim cases called for enhancement.

Issue (i): Whether the insurance policy covering the lorry lapsed on transfer of the vehicle and whether the insurer remained liable to indemnify the transferee.

Analysis: The vehicle had been transferred to the appellant under an agreement executed before the accident, but no step was taken to get the insurance policy transferred in his name. The decision turned on the nature of motor insurance as a personal contract of indemnity and on the statutory requirement under Section 103A of the Motor Vehicles Act that transfer of the policy must be effected in the prescribed manner. The Court also noticed that the original registered owner was dead, no fresh policy had been obtained, and the appellant had not intimated the insurer about the transfer. In these circumstances, the existence of insurable interest in the transferee did not by itself keep the policy alive.

Conclusion: The policy had lapsed on transfer of the vehicle and the insurer was not liable to indemnify the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the accident was due to negligence of both drivers and the extent of apportionment of liability between them.

Analysis: On the evidence, the bus was overcrowded, was being driven at a high speed, and the collision occurred in circumstances indicating greater negligence on the part of the bus driver. At the same time, the lorry driver was also found negligent because both vehicles contributed to the accident. The Court reassessed the oral and documentary evidence and accepted that fault was not confined to one side. It therefore fixed a proportionate liability between the two drivers rather than treating the accident as the result of sole negligence of either vehicle.

Conclusion: The bus driver was held 60 per cent negligent and the lorry driver 40 per cent negligent.

Issue (iii): Whether the compensation awarded in the two claim cases called for enhancement.

Analysis: In the first claim, the injured claimant had suffered burn injuries, remained in hospital for a substantial period, and lost an academic year, so the original award was considered inadequate. In the second claim, the claimant had already received a sum found to be reasonable on the evidence, including the extent of treatment and the subsequent re-employment. The Court therefore interfered only where the original compensation was found insufficient and declined to disturb the other award.

Conclusion: Compensation in the first claim was enhanced to Rs. 8,000, while the second award was left unchanged.

Final Conclusion: The liability for the accident was apportioned between the two vehicles, the insurer of the transferred lorry was exonerated, one compensation award was enhanced, and the other was confirmed with the appeals and cross objections disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a motor vehicle is transferred without transfer of the insurance policy to the transferee, the policy lapses and the insurer is not liable in the absence of a valid transfer or fresh contract of insurance.

---