ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 on decision in Rikhi Ram and another –vrs.- Sukhrania and others, 2003 (2) T.A.C. 22 (S.C). 6. Having perused the materials on record and considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is found that certain facts are not at all disputed. Insurance policy was issued by the Insurance Company in favour of the appellant’s deceased husband in respect of the offending vehicle prior to the accident covering the period from 7.1.1997 to 28.2.1998 vide Ext.A series. Appellant’s husband died on 18.3.1997 and accident took place on 28.6.1997. Ownership of the offending vehicle was transferred by the registering authority in the name of the appellant on 4.12.1997 as is revealed from the copy of the registration certificate filed on behalf of the appellant. Claim application was filed on 19.3.1999 impleading appellant’s deceasedhusband as the owner. Having learnt regarding death of the appellant’s husband claimants impleaded the appellant as the owner of the vehicle when the claim application was pending. Accordingly, claim application was amended before hearing commenced. It is not disputed that insurance SMT. TULASI SAHUKAR -V- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE [B.K.PATEL,J.] policy issued in favour of the offending vehicle was never cancelled or rescinded by the Insurance Company. 7. In view of such admitted facts, there is no scope for the Insurance Company to assail impletion of the appellant in the claim proceeding as the owner. No objection was raised before the learned Tribunal against impletion of the appellant. Scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act also does not provide any scope to the Insurance Company to object to appellant’s impletion on the ground of bar of limitation. Decision in Cuttack Municipality –vrs.- Shyamsundar Behera (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to canvass his objection to the impletion of appellant as the owner of the vehicle lays down that no substitution can be permitted in a case where there was a sole defendant, but where there are more defendants than one and one of them was dead when the suit was filed, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant can be brought on record subject to the question of limitation that may be available to be raised. In the present case, admittedly, deceased-owner was not the only opposite party against whom claim application was filed. Therefore, the objection is not sustainable. 8. The crucial issue to be decided in the appeal is as to whether third party liability of the Insurance Company subsisted in respect of the cause of action arising of use of the offending vehicle after the death of the appellant’s husband but during the period for which the policy had been issued. Stand of the Insurance Company is that the liability towards third party ceased due to inaction on the part of the appellant to get ownership of the offending
145 vehicle and insurance policy transferred in her favour after death of appellant’s husband and before the accident. 9. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the M.V. Act provides for the contingency regarding transfer of ownership of a vehicle in case of death of the registered owner. It reads: “ Where – (a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, xx (b) xxx xxx the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as he case may be, in such manner, INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” Thus the provision makes it clear that so far as transfer of ownership of the registered vehicle by the registering authority is concerned, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle is to make an application for the purpose. It is not disputed that the appellant succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. Therefore, transfer of ownership of the vehicle which the transferee acquired upon death of deceased owner was required to be registered on an application made by the successor of the deceased-owner. 10. Legal consequence of not making an application within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the M.V. Act and the duties of the registering authority on receipt of the application have been provided under sub-section (3) to (7) of Section 50 of the M.V. Act, which read:- “(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52:
ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154: 167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156: 169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157: shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?