JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has been directed against the award dated 15-5-1980 made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Claim Case No. 20 of 1977. ( 2. ) ON 7-7-1977, deceased Ramesh aged about 25 years, a rikshaw puller was knocked down by truck No. M. P. R. 7199, opposite Khalsa Higher Secondary School, in the city of Raipur. Ramesh was thrown away due to the impact of the truck and died instantaneously. Claimants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased Ramesh made a claim of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the death of their son by contending that the accident in which Ramesh had died had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant Tarachand Nema who was also the owner of the said truck which was insured by the New India Assurance Company ltd.-respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company" ). ( 3. ) THE appellant contested the claim by contending that originally the truck in question belonged to one Sardar Gurucharan Singh from whom he had purchased the same on 15-8-1976, on being financed by respondent No. 3 Laxman Rao. He admitted that he was the owner of the truck but took the plea that he was not rash and negligent in driving the truck and the deceased himself had dashed against the truck. He also pleaded that the former owner Sardar Gurucharan Singh had insured the truck with the respondent insurance company and after he purchased the truck an intimation to that effect was given to the respondent insurance company and the insurance company had attorned the policy in his name, which was held by the former owner of the truck and had latter on also issued a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form. Respondent No. 3 Laxman Rao pleaded that he had financed the appellant for purchase of the truck. The respondent-insurance company contested the claim by pleading that the accident had not occurred due to any rash and negligent act on the part of the owner/driver of the truck. The Insurance Company also pleaded that the appellant had not insured the truck with it. The respondent-insurance company contested the claim by pleading that the accident had not occurred due to any rash and negligent act on the part of the owner/driver of the truck. The Insurance Company also pleaded that the appellant had not insured the truck with it. ( 4. ) ON evaluation of evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the incident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant who was the owner and driver of the truck. The Tribunal, however, also came to the conclusion that as the truck was not insured with the respondent insurance Company, the Company was not liable. The Tribunal accordingly made an award of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1, father of the deceased and a sum of rs. 7,000/- in favour of respondent No. 2, the mother of the deceased, against the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, against which this appeal has been directed on the ground that the respondent Insurance Company has been wrongly absolved of the liability. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that the truck involved in the accident was already insured with the respondent Insurance Company by the former owner for which insurance policy Ex. N. A. 2 was issued in the name of Sardar gurucharan Singh and that after the purchase of the truck by the appellant on 15-7-1976, an intimation regarding the purchase by the appellant was already given to the insurance company a month before the accident and, therefore, the said policy enured to the benefit of the appellant as well and the insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability to indemnify the damages. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded and, therefore, has to be accepted. ( 6. ) IT may be pointed out that the appellant in paragraph 4 of his written statement has specifically pleaded that the truck in question was already insured by the former owner Gurucharan Singh with the respondent Insurance Company and that after the appellant purchased the truck on 15-7-1976, an intimation of the said purchase was given to the insurance company and the said policy was attorned in the name of the appellant. The appellant Tarachand Nema who was examined as N. A. W. 1 made a pointed statement on oath in paragraph 5 of his deposition that the intimation of purchase of the truck by him was given to the insurance company and he had paid Rs. 5/- also for transfer of the policy. The insurance company neither filed any rejoinder denying the allegations of the appellant as pleaded by him in paragraph 4 of his written statement nor Tarachand Nema N. A. W. 1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the Insurance Company on the aforesaid statement which indicated that the allegation about the intimation to the Insurance Company after purchase of the truck by the appellant was not disputed by the Insurance Company. ( 7. ) HERE a reference to Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act may be made with advantage. Sub-section (1) runs as under : "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 proposes to transfer 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, he may apply in the prescribed form to the insurer for the transfer of the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is proposed to be transferred, and if within fifteen days of the receipt of such application by the insurer, the insurer has not intimated the insured and such other person his refusal to transfer the certificate and the policy to the other, 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. " A bare reading of the aforesaid provision of law distinctly shows that if the transferee of the vehicle has intimated to the Insurance Company about the purchase of the vehicle with which the vehicle was insured by the former owner and if the insurer has not intimated the insured its refusal to transfer the certificate and the policy to the transferee, within 15 days of the receipt of such intimation, 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 vehicle is transferred, from the date of its transfer. In other words, in a case where on the date of the incident the vehicle was transferred and the policy of insurance stood in the name of the transferor and the intimation about the transfer had been given to the insurance company by the transferee and the accident occurred about a month thereafter, and after such intimation no reply has been received from the insurance company, it will be deemed that the insurance company had transferred the certificate and policy in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred and, therefore, the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation. In this view of the matter I am supported by a Division Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Col. Gurucharan and others, 1983 A. C. J. 309, and a Single Bench decision of the same High Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagwanti and others, 1983 A. C. J. 349. Similar view was taken in the case reported in gulab Bai Damodar Tapse vs. Peter K. Sunder and others, 1975 A. C. J. 100. ( 8. ) THE solitary provision made in Section 103-A of the Act has been designed to provide safeguard to the transferees of the motor vehicle by preventing the insurers from seeking to avoid the liability unless they in clear and unequivocal terms decline to agree to novation of the contract of indemnity. This section provides an opportunity to the insurer with whom the vehicle is insured to come forward with a clear statement whether it has any objection to the acceptance of the purchase of the vehicle. This section provides an opportunity to the insurer with whom the vehicle is insured to come forward with a clear statement whether it has any objection to the acceptance of the purchase of the vehicle. This opportunity by the insurer has to be availed of within the specified period of 15 days of the receipt of the intimation. In the event there is no refusal by the insurer to transfer the certificate and the policy to the purchaser the deeming provision contained in section 103-A would come into operation in consequence of which the certificate of insurance would be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the purchaser. ( 9. ) AS regards the application intimating the transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for transfer of the certificate of insurance and the policy is concerned, no prescribed form was brought to my notice. In any case, the provision to apply in the prescribed form contained in Section 103-A of the Act appears to be only directory and formal in nature and the requirement of the provision will be deemed to have been fully complied with if intimation has been given to the insurance company for the transfer of the insurance certificate and the policy in favour of the transferee. ( 10. ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The award made by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant as well as the respondent No. 4 insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the award. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal from respondent No. 4, the Insurance company. Counsels fee shall be Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three hundred), if certified. Appeal allowed.