1. This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle from an award dated 29-11-1969 giyen by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Bangalore in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1S67.
2. On 26-10-1966 the car bearing No. MYX 3808 belonging to the appellant driven by him at about 10 A.M. at Pantharapalya bus stand, dashed against Geetha Devi aged about 16 years, daughter of Lakshmaiah respondent No. 1, as a result of which she sustained injuries and died.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on the around that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant. The Insurance Company second respondent, contended that one Raghavendra Hegde had taken the Insurance Policy in respect of the oar and that subsequently he sold the car to the appellant on 11-7-1966 and the policy in respect of the car, by virtue of sale of the vehicle, had lapsed and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify.
4. The controversy between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant or whether it wea due to Geetha Devi suddenly running across the road resulting in the accident. On both sides, oral evidence has been adduced. The tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant.
5. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of respondent No. 1. Their evidence in substance WHS that Geetha Devi was standing near the footpath talking to Muneeramma P.W. 2, waiting there to catch a bus that had to come from Bangalore side to go to Kon-geri. At that point of time the car driven by the .appellant came at a great speed and hit Geetha Devi and dragged her to a distance of about 60 feet to 65 feet and then came to a halt on the extreme right side of the road. The evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police examined as R-W. 1 clearly goes to show that from the extreme left side of the road to the right side to a distance of about 65 feet, there was drag-mark and pieces of glass were lying. From this evidence it is clear that the appellant drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit against Geetha Devi.
6. The appellant tried to make out a case at the time of the trial that a bus came from Bangalore side at the time when he was near about the place of accident and then Geetha Devi and her friend Muneeramma P.W. 2, who were standing talking on their right side suddenly crossed the road and therefore he could not avoid the accident. But the evidence in this case goes to show that the bus that came from Bangalore side in which Geetha Devi and Muneeramma wanted to travel, came after the accident and stood at a distance of about 100 feet away from the place where the car had halted. Therefore it is clear that Geetha Devi could not have suddenly crossed the road sighting the bus. The place of impact, admittedly was about two or three feet away from the left kerb stone of the foot-path. If that is so it is clear that the appellant drove the oar rashly end negligently close to his extreme left and hit Geetha Devi. Secondly from the fact that the car stood after the impact at a distance of about 65 feet it goes to show that the appellant must have driven the vehicle at great speed. Therefore, in our view, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, no appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 claiming enhanced compensation. However, he has filed cross-objections claiming enhanced compensation. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to file cross-objections. In view of the decisions of this court in number of oases, the cross-objections filed by respondent No. 1 are not maintainable. The compensation given is not at all excessive.
8. The insurance company is absolved from liability to pay compensation on the ground that there was no policy existing at the time of the accident. The appellant, however, contended that the car had been insured with Raghavendra Hegde and that after he purchased the car, the policy was still in force even though the policy had not been transferred in his name and therefore the Insurance Company should have also been made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
9. The duty of the insurer to cover the third party risk can arise only if at the time of the accident there is in force a policy of insurance in relation to the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The certificate of insurance may contain a condition that the approval of the insurer is necessary for the transfer of the benefit of the policy to the transferee along with the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. It is not disputed in this case that the policy that had been taken by Raghavendra Hegde in respect of the car had not been transferred to the appellant when he sold the car. Even if there was a condition in the policy that it could have been transferred with the approval of the insurer, the fact remains that the policy had not been transferred. In such a case, the appellant, who purchased the vehicle cannot claim the benefit of a policy, which in fact had lapsed after the car was sold to him. An insurance policy is a personal contract between the parties for indemnifying the insured in case of an accident covered under the policy. If the motor vehicle is transferred by an insured to another person, the insurance policy lapses upon the transfer. In such a case the benefit of the policy is not available to the transferee without an express agreement with the insurance company. In this case, there is no such agreement between the appellant and the insurance company nor is there any transfer of the insurance policy with the approval of the Insurance Company. That being so, the insurance policy lapsed or is not available to cover the liability of the purchaser, namely, the appellant, of the vehicle.
10. In the result, this appealfails and is dismissed with costs. Thecross-objections stand dismissed withoutcosts.