# The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1438
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-13
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3907 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-company-ltd-lakhimpur-kheri-v-permanent-lok-adalat-52514
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
227
-validity
of
judgement
delivered
by
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
challenged-dispute regarding insurance
claim for a truck accident-whether the
owner of the truck who had agreed to sell
the truck to some other person retained
insurable interest- statutory provision
regarding transfer of vehicles- contained
in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988- as the truck's ownership had not
legally
transferred-no
change
in
ownership-respondent
owner
thus
entitled to claim- legislative intent to hold
insurers liable even if ownership transfer
isn't recorded-petition dismissed. (Paras
13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)

HELD:
Further, Section 157 provides that upon transfer
of ownership of a vehicle, the certificate of
insurance and the policy described in the
certificate shall be deemed to have been
9 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat,
 Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1439
transferred in favour of the person to whom the
motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the
date of its transfer. The deeming fiction provided
by the statute means that even if the insurance
policy is not transferred in fact, the insurance
company would become liable under the policy to
the transferee of the vehicle. Therefore, the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in spite the
transfer having not been recorded in the records of
the transport office. The intention of the legislation
is to include the transferees liberally and not to
exclude them strictly. (Para 13)

This judgment also affirms the conclusion drawn
by this Court in the preceding paragraph that the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in spite the
transfer having not been recorded in the records of
the transport office. The intention of the legislation
is to include the transferees liberally and not to
exclude them strictly. (Para 14)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
transfer of the vehicle was not in dispute and
the insurance company was liable to satisfy the
claim. This judgment also supports the view of
this Court that the intention of the legislature is
to
make
the
insurance
company
liable
immediately, in spite the transfer having not
been recorded in the records of the transport
office and the intention is not to exclude the
transferees strictly. (Para 16)

In the present case the transfer does not stand
completed and the claimant continues to be the
registered owner of the vehicle. He had entered
into a contract of insurance with the appellant
and he filed the claim. (Para 17)

In absence of the ownership of the vehicle
having been transferred, the petitioner would
continue to be liable under the contract of
insurance entered between the appellant and
the registered owner of the vehicle. (Para 18)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. With above observations, the
Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that "In
view of the above, it is clear that the
consistent view of this Court is that the
accused cannot ask for changing the
Investigating
Agency
or
to
do
investigation in a particular manner
including
for
Court
monitored
investigation. However, Hon'ble Apex
Court while placing reliance on an earlier
judgement in In Narmada Bai v State of
Gujarat,22 the petitioner filed a writ 22
(2011) 5 SCC 79, observed that "this case
supports my view that in the interest of
justice, and particularly when there are
serious doubts regarding the investigation
being carried out, it is not only permissible,
but our constitutional duty to ensure that
the investigation is carried out by a special
investigation team or a special investigative
agency so that justice is not compromised."

9. In present case, the main contention
raised on behalf of the petitioners is that they
have been roped in by the informant in present
criminal case with a view to exert pressure in a
civil suit filed at the instance of petitioner No.1
for avoidance of a sale deed propounded by
respondent No.4, the informant with regard to
disputed land on which petitioners claimed
their title and possession. Only, on this count,
it cannot be discerned that the case lodged at
the instance of the informant is malicious or
investigation carried out by the police has been
shoddy or perfunctory or partial. Law will take
its own course.

10. Without expressing any opinion
on the version and counter version of the
informant and accused side and placing
reliance on the dictum of Hon'ble Apex
Court in above cited case, we are of the
considered opinion that the prayer made in
present writ petition is not liable to be
granted.

11. Accordingly, present writ petition
stands dismissed.

12. However, it is made clear that any
observation made hereinabove will have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1438
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.09.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3907 of 2024

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Lakhimpur Kheri ...Petitioner
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur Kheri &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
227
-validity
of
judgement
delivered
by
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
challenged-dispute regarding insurance
claim for a truck accident-whether the
owner of the truck who had agreed to sell
the truck to some other person retained
insurable interest- statutory provision
regarding transfer of vehicles- contained
in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988- as the truck's ownership had not
legally
transferred-no
change
in
ownership-respondent
owner
thus
entitled to claim- legislative intent to hold
insurers liable even if ownership transfer
isn't recorded-petition dismissed. (Paras
13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)

HELD:
Further, Section 157 provides that upon transfer
of ownership of a vehicle, the certificate of
insurance and the policy described in the
certificate shall be deemed to have been
9 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat,
 Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1439
transferred in favour of the person to whom the
motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the
date of its transfer. The deeming fiction provided
by the statute means that even if the insurance
policy is not transferred in fact, the insurance
company would become liable under the policy to
the transferee of the vehicle. Therefore, the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in spite the
transfer having not been recorded in the records of
the transport office. The intention of the legislation
is to include the transferees liberally and not to
exclude them strictly. (Para 13)

This judgment also affirms the conclusion drawn
by this Court in the preceding paragraph that the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in spite the
transfer having not been recorded in the records of
the transport office. The intention of the legislation
is to include the transferees liberally and not to
exclude them strictly. (Para 14)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
transfer of the vehicle was not in dispute and
the insurance company was liable to satisfy the
claim. This judgment also supports the view of
this Court that the intention of the legislature is
to
make
the
insurance
company
liable
immediately, in spite the transfer having not
been recorded in the records of the transport
office and the intention is not to exclude the
transferees strictly. (Para 16)

In the present case the transfer does not stand
completed and the claimant continues to be the
registered owner of the vehicle. He had entered
into a contract of insurance with the appellant
and he filed the claim. (Para 17)

In absence of the ownership of the vehicle
having been transferred, the petitioner would
continue to be liable under the contract of
insurance entered between the appellant and
the registered owner of the vehicle. (Para 18)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 221
2. Balwant Singh & Sons Vs National Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 745

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Asit Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel for the
caveator / opposite party - Govind Gupta
and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged
validity of the judgment and order dated
04.06.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Lakhimpur Kheri in P.L.A. Case
No. 09 of 2022.

3. The opposite party Govind Gupta
filed the aforesaid P.L.A. case stating that
he is the registered owner of Truck bearing
registration no. UP 31 T 9835, which was
insured by the petitioner - The New India
Assurance
Co.
Ltd.
for
the
period
06.11.2019 to 05.11.2020 for a sum of
Rs.13,00,000/-. The truck met with an
accident in the night of 01.11.2020. The
opposite party gave information of the
damage caused to the truck to the petitioner
and
submitted
a
claim
form.
The
petitioner's surveyor had inspected the
truck. Rs.4,85,768/- were spent in repair of
the truck and the opposite party had
submitted the repair bills to the petitioner.
The petitioner rejected the insurance claim.

4. The petitioner filed objections
stating
that
after
the
surveyor
had
submitted his report, the petitioner had
appointed an investigator, who took a
written statement of the opposite party,
wherein the latter stated that he had
transferred the truck to one Sanjeev Kumar
son of Siya Ram subject to the condition
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that Sanjeev Kumar will pay the Bank's
installments. At the time of the accident,
the truck was being driven by a driver
engaged by Sanjeev Kumar. At the time of
the accident the truck was in custody of
Sanjeev Kumar and not in custody of the
opposite
party.
The
investigator
had
recorded statement of Sanjeev Kumar also,
who stated that he was paying the
installments to the bank. The petitioner
claims that this indicates that the truck was
in
custody
of
Sanjeev
Kumar
and
ownership of the truck could not be
transferred only because the truck was
hypothecated and it could legally be
transferred only after repayment of the
loan.
The
petitioner
had
disputed
correctness of the amount spent in repairs
also.

5. The Permanent Lok Adalat had
framed the following three issues: -

1) Whether the dispute was
beyond jurisdiction of the Court?

2) What would be the effect of
involvement of a third party in the dispute
between the parties?

3) Whether the truck met with an
accident in the night of 01/01.11.2020 and
whether the claimant was entitled to
receive compensation for the damage
caused to the vehicle? If yes, then he is
entitled to receive what amount as
compensation?

6. While dealing with issue no. 2, the
Permanent Lok Adalat has recorded in its
judgment that the petitioner has admitted in
the written statement that the vehicle was
insured; that it had met with an accident;
that the claimant - opposite party had given
information of the accident; that the vehicle
got damaged in the accident and that it has
rejected the insurance claim. It was
contended by the petitioner that the
opposite party had transferred the vehicle
to Sanjeev Kumar and, therefore, the
opposite party did not have any insurable
interest. The petitioner admitted that as the
vehicle loan amount had not been repaid,
the vehicle could not be transferred and it
continued to be registered in the name of
Sanjeev Kumar. Sanjeev Kumar had filed
an application for impleadment which had
been rejected on 27.04.2023 as he was not
the owner of the vehicle and he could not
be impleaded in the proceedings.

7. Keeping in view all the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, the
Permanent Lok Adalat came to the
conclusion that the agreement between the
opposite party and Sanjeev Kumar would
not affect the adjudication of dispute
between the parties to the case.

8. Sri. Asit Srivastava, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has limited his
ground of challenge to the finding recorded
on Issue no. 2 only.

9. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has drawn attention of the Court
to a copy of the agreement dated
24.10.2019 executed by the opposite party
and Sanjeev Kumar Verma, whereby the
opposite party had agreed to sell the truck
to the latter, the transferee had agreed to
pay installments to the bank towards
repayment of the loan and the parties had
agreed that the vehicle will be transferred
thereafter. It is also written in the
agreement that the entire responsibility
regarding the vehicle after execution of the
agreement would lie on the transferee.

10. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that when the truck
had been transferred by the opposite party,
9 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat,
 Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
1441
he was not entitled to make any insurance
claim in respect of the transferred vehicle.
In support of this contention, he has placed
reliance on the judgments in the cases of
Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC
221 and Balwant Singh and Sons v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 11
SCC 745,

11. The statutory provision regarding
transfer of vehicles is contained in Section
157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which provides as follows: -

"157. Transfer of certificate of
insurance

(1) Where a person, in whose
favour the certificate of insurance has been
issued in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter, transfers to another person
the ownership of the motor vehicle in
respect of which such insurance was
taken together with the policy of insurance
relating thereto, the certificate of insurance
and the policy described in the certificate
shall be deemed to have been transferred in
favour of the person to whom the motor
vehicle is transferred with effect from the
date of its transfer.

Explanation.-- For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that such
deemed transfer shall include transfer of
rights and liabilities of the said certificate
of insurance and policy
of insurance.

(2) The transferee shall apply
within fourteen days from the date of
transfer in the prescribed form to the
insurer for making necessary changes in
regard to the fact of transfer in the
certificate of insurance and the policy
described in the certificate in his favour,
and the insurer shall make the necessary
changes in the certificate and the policy of
insurance in regard to the transfer of
insurance."

12. Thus a bare perusal of the
aforesaid statutory provision makes it
manifest that the aforesaid section is
attracted when the owner of the vehicle
transfers the ownership of the motor
vehicle, which has not been done in the
present case. The opposite party had merely
entered into an agreement for transferring
the ownership of the vehicle at a future
point of time, after repayment of the entire
loan taken for purchase of the vehicle.

13. Further, Section 157 provides that
upon transfer of ownership of a vehicle, the
certificate of insurance and the policy
described in the certificate shall be deemed
to have been transferred in favour of the
person to whom the motor vehicle is
transferred with effect from the date of its
transfer. The deeming fiction provided by
the statute means that even if the insurance
policy is not transferred in fact, the
insurance company would become liable
under the policy to the transferee of the
vehicle. Therefore, the intention of the
legislature is to make the insurance
company liable immediately, in spite the
transfer having not been recorded in the
records of the transport office. The
intention of the legislation is to include the
transferees liberally and not to exclude
them strictly.

14. In Complete Insulations (P) Ltd.
v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (1996)
1 SCC 221, a car was purchased in the
name of Mrs Archana Wadhwa for which
the respondent company had issued a
comprehensive
insurance
policy.
The
premium for the insurance was paid by the
appellant Company in whose favour the car
was transferred. The registration of the car
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was transferred to the appellant on
15.06.1989. On 26.06.1989, the appellant
intimated the transfer of registration and
asked for transfer of the insurance policy.
A reminder was sent on 24.07.1989, but the
respondent did not respond. On 17.09.1989
the car met with an accident in which the
Managing
Director
of
the
appellant
suffered serious injuries and his sister died.
On 11.10.1989 the appellant asked for the
assessment of the damage as the car was a
total loss. The respondent did not respond.
A reminder dated 26.12.1989 met with the
same fate. The appellant got a notice
issued, to which the respondent replied that
the appellant had no insurable interest in
the car. The appellant filed a complaint
before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chandigarh, which directed
the respondent to pay Rs. 83,000/- i.e. the
insured value of the vehicle, along with
costs and interest. The National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission set aside
the order of the Commission at Chandigarh,
dismissed the complaint and granted cost of
the appeal. The question involved in appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
whether on the above facts, without the
insurance policy being transferred in the
name of the appellant, it was entitled to be
indemnified by the insurer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court answered the question in
the affirmative, holding the Insurance
Company liable to indemnify the transferee
although the insurance policy had not been
transferred in its name. This judgment also
affirms the conclusion drawn by this Court
in the preceding paragraph that the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in
spite the transfer having not been recorded
in the records of the transport office. The
intention of the legislation is to include the
transferees liberally and not to exclude
them strictly.

15. Balwant Singh and Sons v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 11
SCC 745, was an appeal filed arising from
a judgment of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing
a
revision
petition
filed
by
the
appellant. Ncdrc upheld the view of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum,
Jalandhar
and
of
the
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Chandigarh that the insurer was not liable
on a claim preferred under a policy of
insurance for the loss of a vehicle
occasioned by theft. The undisputed facts
of the case were mentioned in para 9 as
follows: -

"9.1. The appellant purchased
the vehicle at an auction conducted by the
Bank
to
whom
the
vehicle
was
hypothecated in pursuance of a hirepurchase agreement.

9.2. The
appellant
paid
full
consideration for the sale which was
conducted in an auction to the Bank.

9.3. A certificate of possession
was furnished to the appellant by the Bank.

9.4. The
Bank
intimated
the
insurer that it ceased to have a lien on the
vehicle consequent to the auction-sale.

9.5. The proposal for insurance
was submitted by the appellant to the
insurer.

9.6. Premium in respect of the
insurance cover was paid by the appellant.

9.7. The policy of insurance was
issued by the insurer in the name of the
third respondent but clearly reflecting the
name of the appellant as well. Evidently, in
this background, the reference of the
appellant was not just for the purposes of a
postal address."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the transfer of the vehicle was not in
9 All. Kallu @ Praveen Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1443
dispute and the insurance company was
liable to satisfy the claim. This judgment
also supports the view of this Court that the
intention of the legislature is to make the
insurance company liable immediately, in
spite the transfer having not been recorded
in the records of the transport office and the
intention is not to exclude the transferees
strictly.

17. In the present case the transfer
does not stand completed and the claimant
continues to be the registered owner of the
vehicle. He had entered into a contract of
insurance with the appellant and he filed
the claim.

18. In absence of the ownership of the
vehicle
having
been
transferred,
the
petitioner would continue to be liable under
the contract of insurance entered between
the appellant and the registered owner of
the vehicle.

19. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I am of the considered view that
there is no illegality of error in the
judgment and order dated 04.06.2024
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Lakhimpur Kheri in P.L.A. Case No. 09 of
2022 allowing the claim of the opposite
party warranting interference by this Court.

20. The petition lacks merits and the
same is dismissed. The parties shall bear
their own costs of litigation.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 445 of 2024

Kallu @ Praveen ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anju Shukla, Nigamendra Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G.I., G.A., Prem Narayan Rai

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 - order of preventive
detention by District Magistrate- under
Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act,
1980-detention
under
F.I.R.
under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 404 of
IPC-detention is based on this FIR- no
sucg proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in St. of Haryana on basis of
earlier registered FIR- matter of trial
whether the petitioner who is nominated
on
the
St.ment
of
co-accused-such
St.ment can be read in evidence against
the petitioner when eyewitnesses have
not named him-petitioner was not initially
named in FIR-implicated later on the
St.ment of co-accused- lack of a proper
hearing
and
non-disclosure
of
vital
materials to petitioner- NSA provisions
cannot
be
used
to
prevent
bail
applications-detention order set asidepetition allowed. (Paras 26 and 27)
HELD:
The detention of the petitioner is based on two
F.I.R. i.e. one Case Crime No. 0611 of 2023
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 404 of
IPC at Police Station - Teelamod, Trans Hindon
Commissionerate Ghaziabad in U.P. In this F.I.R.,
for a period of one month, the informant, his
wife, and wife of his deceased-brother did not
name the petitioner as an accused. Rather,
perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the same has
been registered against the co-villagers on
account of enmity regarding the election of
Village Pradhan and all the three witnesses have
assigned specific roles of firing on deceased to
those persons who are residents of the same