ORDER R. K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the claimant-injured against the Award dated 21.9.88 passed by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 175/87, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7, 720/- with interest @ of 12% per annum as compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident which occurred due' to rash and negligent driving of an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. MPF 8835. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly slated are as follows: On 20.5.79 at about 9.15 P.M. while the claimant Meera Bai and Nagindas were going in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. MPF 8835 from Ramkumar Mill Indore towards Yashwant Talkies, the said auto-rickshaw over-turned on the road near telephone exchange due to rash and negligent driving of its driver respondent No. 2 Bijaykumar and asarcsult of this accident the claimant Meerabai sustained injuries including a fracture on her left shoulder. Her husband Nagindas who is a claimant-appellant in the other connected appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 203/88) sustained injuries on his left hand and left shoulder and a fracture of his clavicle bone. Both the claimants Meerabai and Nagindas were admitted in M.Y. Hospital for treatment of their injuries. 3. Two separate claim petitions were filed before the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Indore, one by the claimant-appellant Mccrobui which was registered as Claim Case No. 175/17 and the other by the claimant Agindas which was registered as Claim Case No. 176/87 and in each of the two cases the owner and driver of the auto-rickshaw viz. Nasirali and Vijaykumar were joined as non-applicants No. 1 and 2. The insurer in respect of the auto-rickshaw and the former owner of the said auto-rickshaw Jagdishkumar were also joined as respondents No. 3 and 4. 4. After trial of the case the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, found only the driver Vijaykumar and owner Nasirali, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants Meerabai and Nugindas in respect of whom a compensation of Rs. 7, 720/- and Rs. 8, 556/- respectively have been awarded with interest @ 12% per annum. 7, 720/- and Rs. 8, 556/- respectively have been awarded with interest @ 12% per annum. The insurer and the former owner of the auto-rickshaw Jagdishkumar have been exonerated from any liability to pay compensation on the ground that Nasirali and not Jagdishkumar was the owner of the auto-rickshaw in question at the time of accident and that the Insurance Policy for the material period-covering the date of accident did not stand in the name of Nasirali but was continued in the name of the original owner Jagdishkumar. 5. Being aggrieved by the Awards made by the learned Tribunal in the two cases aforesaid the claimants have respectively filed the present appeal and the connected Misc. Appeal No. 203/88. 6. The only contention raised on, behalf of the appellant-claimant in this appeal as also in the other appeal is that the Insurance Company should also have been held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants has submitted that the auto-rickshaw in question stood insured with the Insurance Company respondent No. 3 during the material time when the accident took place and as such the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated from the liability. 7. The above contention of the learned Counsel is apparently based on a misconception about the nature and scope of Insurance Policy. The Insurance Policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured who is names in the policy whereby the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured owner of the vehicle in respect of any liability arising from the use of the vehicle in respect of which the owner is insured. It is an admitted position in this case that the respondent No. 4 Jagdishkumar was the original owner of the auto-rickshaw in question and the respondent No. 1 Nasirali had purchased the auto-rickshaw from Jagdishkumar much prior to the date of accident and as such, was the owner of the said auto-rickshaw on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal has believed the statement of Jagdishkumar to the effect that he had sold the said auto-rickshaw to Nasirali in the year 1972 and had received the wnole amount of the price by November, 1973 and from that time the autorickshaw was in possession and ownership of Nasirali. The learned Tribunal has believed the statement of Jagdishkumar to the effect that he had sold the said auto-rickshaw to Nasirali in the year 1972 and had received the wnole amount of the price by November, 1973 and from that time the autorickshaw was in possession and ownership of Nasirali. Nasirali and Vijaykumar in their common reply to the claim petition have also admitted that Nasirali was the owner and Vijaykumar was the driver of the autorickshaw No. MPF 883S on the date of the accident i.e. 20.5.79. It is an admitted position that Nasirali has not been insured under the policy of insurance. The liability arising out of the accident is primarily that of the driver due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The owner becomes vicariously liable by reason of employment of the driver who committed the fault and if the owner is not insured against such liability, he has no right to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. In the instant case, therefore, Nasirali cannot claim to be indemnified under the Insurance Policy since the Insurance Policy produced in the case does not name Nasirali as the insured. 8. It appears that Nasirali continued to renew the Insurance Policy in the name of Jagdishkumar, the former owner of the auto-rickshaw in question but Jagdishkumar has ceased to be the owner of the auto-rickshaw since its transfer by sale to Nasirali in the year 1973 and as such Jagdishkumar had no insurable interest in the said auto-rickshaw after the dale of transfer in favour of Nasirali. Thus, in the absence of any contract of insurance with Nasirali, the Insurance Company cannot be asked to indemnify him against the liability incurred by him in respect of the bodily injuries to the claimants arising out of the use of auto-rickshaw in question. 9. The learned Counsel for the owner-respondent No. has next submitted that the respondent No. 4 Jagdishkumar, the original owner still continues to be shown as the registered owner of, the auto rickshaw in question and therefore, he should also be made liable jointly and severally with Nasirali, who has become the owner of the said auto-rickshaw since before the date of the accident by virtue of transfer. This contention was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal also and the learned Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court in Nanakchand v. Sarila and Anr. (MA. No. 207/89) dated 12.8.88 has rightly negatived the contention, taking the view that the sale of auto-rickshaw in question had been completed and the registered owner was left with no title or control over the said auto-rickshaw consequent upon the transfer of title in favour of purchaser Nasirali. Jagdishkumar cannot therefore be held liable. 10. The owner of the offending auto-rickshaw, Nasirali, therefore, must be held liable for the fault of the driver of the said auto-rickshaw in question, and since there is no insurance policy in favour of Nasirali the insurer cannot be asked to indemnify Nasirali on the strength of the policy which existed in the name of Jagdishkumar respondent No. 4. No privity of contract can be inferred between Nasirali and the Insurance Company when the name of Nasirali docs not find mention in the Insurance Policy. 11. In view of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal as well as the connected appeal Misc. Appeal No. 203/88 (Nagindas v. Nasirali and Ors.) which fail and are hereby dismissed.