( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle from an award dated 29-11-1969 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1967. ( 2 ) ON 26-10-1966 the car bearing No. MYX 3808 belonging to the appellant driven by him at about 10 A. M. at Panthrapalaya 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 S. 110a of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000 on the ground 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 car 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 was 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 1. Therefore, in our view, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant. ( 6 ) SO far as the quantum of compensation is concerned no appeal has been filed by respondent 1 claiming enhanced compensation. However he has filed cross-objections claiming enhanced compensation. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to file cress-objections. In view of the decisions of this Court in a number of cases, the cross-objections filed by respondent 1 are not maintainable. The compensation given is not at all excessive ( 7 ) 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. In view of the decisions of this Court in a number of cases, the cross-objections filed by respondent 1 are not maintainable. The compensation given is not at all excessive ( 7 ) 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. ( 8 ) 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 ihe 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 rar. 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. 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. ( 9 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The cross-objections stand dismissed without costs. --- *** --- .