FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) CR-911-2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 (2 cases) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 1) FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....APPELLANT VERSUS KAMLESH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS 2) CR-911-2002 (O&M) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....PETITIONER VERSUS RAM MEHAR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate and Ms. Tamanna Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Harshit Singla, Advocate and Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 5. Services of respondents No.6 and 7 dispensed with. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (ORAL) 1. The aforesaid appeal and revision petition have been insti- tuted by the Insurance Company against the award dated 17.05.2001 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) CR-911-2002 (O&M) -2- passed in MACT Case No.87 of 2000 vide which a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimants, namely, Kamlesh, Sandeep, Sonika, Monika and Giani (respondents No.1 to 5 in the present appeal) on account of death of Randhir Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum, payable by all the respondents jointly and severally and in MACT Case No.89 of 2000 vide which a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to claimant, namely, Ram Mehar (respondent No.1 in present re- vision petition) on account of damage to Maruti car along with interest @ 9% per annum payable by all the respondents jointly and severally, but li- ability of Insurance Company has been limited to the extent of Rs.6,000/- only. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and material on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further argued that the vehicle in question was owned by respondent No.2 Hardeep Singh which was purchased by him from previ- ous owner, namely, Ranjit Singh who had got the vehicle insured. After purchasing the offending vehicle from previous owner, Hardeep Singh re- spondent No.2 never intimated the Insurance Company and did not get the insurance policy transferred in his favour and there is thus no privity of VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) CR-911-2002 (O&M) -3- contract between the Insurance Company and respondent No.2 and the In- surance Company is thus not liable to indemnify him and learned counsel prayed that the appeal in hand be accepted and Insurance Company be ex- onerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. 4. Learned counsel further contended that the car owned by the claimant Ram Mehar was also damaged in the accident who has been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation payable by respondents No.1 to 3 out of which the liability of Insurance Company has been held to the extent of Rs.6,000/- but since insurance policy had not been got transferred by respondent No.2 from its previous owner, namely, Ranjit Singh, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured as on the date of accident and the previous owner, namely, Ranjit Singh had sold the same to respondent No.2 Hardeep Singh and the vehicle was transferred in his favour. However, the Insurance policy was not trans- ferred in favour of the purchaser and in these circumstances, the Insurance Company shall continue to be liable towards third party risks. Even other- wise, it shall be deemed that the policy stood transferred along with the vehicle. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding FAO-5482- 2016 vide judgment dated 14.02.2023 titled Jaibir Singh vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.& Others and while relying upon FAO-2837 of VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) CR-911-2002 (O&M) -4- 2001 titled Om Parkash through LRs Vs. Ravinder Kumar & Others and FAO No.893 of 1997 titled United India Insurance Company Lim- ited Vs. Rajvinder Kaur & Others, has held that as per Section 157 of the MV Act, liability of insurer continues even when the vehicle is trans- ferred in favour of purchaser but the intimation of transfer is not given to the insurance company. The insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount of compensation and there is deemed transfer of insurance policy alongwith the transfer of vehicle. It has been further held that insurer is liable by a deemed transfer even in the absence of in- formation by subsequent purchaser or his insurer. In these circumstances, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify re- spondent No.2. Besides this, no evidence has been led by the insurance company to establish that respondent No.2 has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in these circumstances, liability of respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall be joint and several. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to the issue of liability is well reasoned and justified and does not suffer from any material illegality or infirmity and no inter- ference in the same is thus called for. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal as well as revision petition and the same are ordered to be dismissed. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3289-2001 (O&M) CR-911-2002 (O&M) -5- 8. It is made clear that the claimants had also instituted FAO- 3202-2001 and FAO-3386-2001 for enhancement of compensation which have already been disposed of vide judgment dated 11.07.2014. 9. Pending misc application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s). 27.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document