DR. T. V. JOSE versus CHACKO P.M. @ THANKACHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 27-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DR. T. V. JOSE 
v. 
CHACKO P.M. @ THANKACHAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2001 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Car accident-Death of a passenger-liability to pay compensation vis-
a-vis the driver, the owner of the car and insurance company-Plea of appellant-
owner that the car was transferred to another person-RTO records not showing 
the trans.fer-Tribunal held the driver liable and discharged the owner and 
insurance company.from the liability-High Court held appellant liable relying 
on RTO records-On appeal appellant held liable though the ownership of the 
car had changed since the trans.fer was not effected in the records of RTO-
D 
Insurance company discharged from liability as third party policy did not cover 
liability to gratuitous passengers who were not carried for hire or reward-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 94 and 95. 
E 
F 
G 
In a car accident one of the passenger travelling in the car died. The 
legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation before the 
Motor Accidents Claims J'ribunal. Appellant contended that he was not 
the actual owner and one 'R' was the owner of the same on the date of the 
accident. However, he admitted that the transfe.r was not intimated to 
R.1~0. and in its record appellant was shown the owner and the insurance 
policy was also i11 the name of the appellant. Respondent No. l driver 
contended that the appellant was the owner as he was employed by the 
appellant. Insurance Company contended that since the policy was 'Third 
Party Policy' it did not have any liability towards its passengers. Tribunal 
passed an award holding the driver liable to pay compensation and relying 
on the oral evidence held that the appellant not being the owner of the car 
was not liable and the Insurance Company too was not liable since the 
policy was issued in the name of the appellant when he was not the real 
owner • 
. Before High Court, appellant contended that Insurance Company 
was liable to pay compensation in view of the circular issued by the Tariff 
H 
Advisory committee. High Court held that the appellant was also liable to 
366 
• .,. 
-
DR. T.V. JOSE v. CHACKO P.M. @ THANKACHAN 
367 
. pay compensation since he was the owner of the car as documents disclosed 
so, and that the Insurance Company was not liable since the said cireular 
only dealt with comprehensive policy. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the real owner of 
the car was 'R' and hence he was liable to pay the compensatiOn; and that 
the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation as even in a 
third party policy the Insurance Company would be liable for a claim by a 
passenger in the car as Section Il(l)(a) of Insurance Policy provided that 
Insurance Company was liable for death or bodily injury of any person, 
and as Sections 94 and 95 of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 provided that 'any 
person' and 'third party' would also include passengers in the car; and 
that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to have produced the terms 
and conditions of the original Policy before the Court. Respondents 
contended that though according to a clause of the policy I.M. T. S was for 
accident to passengers other than insured, but since the premium required 
to be paid to cover passengers or occupants of the car were not paid, the 
policy did not cover liability to such persons; and that terms and comUtions 
relied upon by the appellant were not on record and the appellant had 
shown the terms and conditions of a comprehensive policy which did not 
apply to third party policy. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court was not right in holding that the appellant 
continued to be the owner~as the name had not been changed in the records 
of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and 
delivery of the Car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the 
car bad been transferred. However the appellant still continued to remain 
liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as 
owner; he could not escape the liability by adding the transferee, who was 
not a party either before the Tribunal or the High Court. [370-F; GJ 
1.2. In order to decide inter se liability between the appellant and the 
transferee it is for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against 
him if, in law, he is entitled to do so. (370-H; 371-A] 
2. In the absence of terms and conditions governing Insura

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.