Gujarat High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawInsurance Law

Transfer of vehicle ownership does not, by itself, extinguish subsisting insurance coverage.

VIPULKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI CHAUHAN vs RAMANLAL NARSINHBHAI CHAUHAN

Gujarat High CourtJUDGMENT: September 22, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Transfer of vehicle ownership does not, by itself, extinguish subsisting insurance coverage.. VIPULKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI CHAUHAN vs RAMANLAL NARSINHBHAI CHAUHAN. Gujarat High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 23 June 2017, the claimant was injured when his motorcycle collided with a Santro car near village Kotdi; an FIR was registered against the car’s driver.

Source reference: p. 1

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Source reference: p. 1

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,05,390 with 9% interest but exonerated the insurer because the car had changed ownership during the policy period and the transfer had not been effected with the insurer.

Source reference: pp. 1–2

The claimant appealed under Section 173, challenging the insurer’s exoneration.

Source reference: p. 1
02

Issues

Whether the transfer of the insured vehicle during the policy period, without cancellation of the policy by the insurer, relieved the insurer of liability to indemnify the new owner for the accident.

Source reference: pp. 2–3

Whether the Tribunal’s award should be modified to make the insurer jointly and severally liable while maintaining the compensation awarded.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the compensation claim had been made under Section 166.

Source reference: p. 1

A running insurance policy covering the vehicle does not ipso facto cease upon transfer of ownership; where the insurer has not cancelled the policy, the purchaser steps into the previous owner’s position and the insurer remains liable to indemnify the risk.

Source reference: p. 3

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The policy was effective and covered the vehicle on the date of the accident.

Source reference: p. 3

The insurer identified no statutory provision supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion that the ownership transfer, by itself, ended coverage; nor had the insurer cancelled the policy by notifying the former or new owner.

Source reference: p. 3

Applying the principle that the policy continued to cover the vehicle and that the purchaser assumed the prior owner’s position, the Court found the insurer liable.

Source reference: p. 3

It found no basis to disturb the amount of compensation awarded.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
05

Holding

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order exonerating the insurer, and maintained the Tribunal’s compensation award of ₹1,05,390.

The insurer was held jointly and severally liable with opponent Nos. 1, 2.1 and 2.2, and was directed to deposit the decretal amount with 9% annual interest from the date of the claim petition until realisation within eight weeks of receiving the order.

Source reference: p. 4
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19882

Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF

VIPULKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI CHAUHANvsRAMANLAL NARSINHBHAI CHAUHAN

Gujarat High Court · September 22, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment