D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE deceased Devaji Kubbi lost his life in a truck accident on the night intervening 28th and 29/06/1980. He was employed on the truck as one of the labourers for loading and unloading of goods. In the claim petition filed by his dependents, the appellant was pleaded as owner of truck No. CPR 9128 which was involved in the accident. The driver of the truck was one Nago, who was also made a party (respondent No. 5) in this appeal, but he remained ex parte. The respondent No. 6 - The New India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was alleged to have been insured was not made party in the claim petition before the Tribunal. At the fag end of the trial of the case, the claimants filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for impleading the Insurance Company (respondent No. 6) and one Harbhajan Singh S/o Amrik Singh, who was registered as the owner of the truck in the office of the R. T. A. Surprisingly, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal by order passed on 30-6-1993 rejected the application filed by the claimants for impleading the Insurance Company and the registered owner of the truck, as parties to the case. By that order the Tribunal has held that on the date of accident, the actual and real owner of the truck was the appellant and it is, therefore, not necessary to implead the registered owner as a party to the case, at the fag end of the case. So far as the impleading of the Insurance Company was concerned, the learned Member held that the Insurance Company can be noticed under Section 96 (2) of the M. V. Act, at any stage before or after passing of the award in the case. The Tribunal passed the award on 18-7-1983, without impleading the registered owner and the Insurance Company as parties to the case. The Claims Tribunal, did not notice any of the two parties, before or after passing of the award. The Claim Tribunal by the impugned award dated 18-7-1983 completely disbelieved the statement of the present appellant that he was not the owner of the truck involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal, did not notice any of the two parties, before or after passing of the award. The Claim Tribunal by the impugned award dated 18-7-1983 completely disbelieved the statement of the present appellant that he was not the owner of the truck involved in the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, passed an award of granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 19,800/-, only against the present appellant, describing him as the real owner of the truck. ( 2 ) IN this appeal before me, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant admits that under the award of the Tribunal, nothing has been paid to the claimants so far. It is obvious that the claimants, having suffered a great tragedy and having not been paid anything so far, are unable to engage any lawyer to defend themselves. Inspite of notice of this appeal, they have not appeared. The respondent No. 5, driver was already ex parte in the Court below and service of notice on him can be dispensed with. ( 3 ) IN this appeal before me, the appellant strenuously argued that he had nothing to do with the truck involved in the accident and he is not the owner of the same. It is pointed out, on his behalf, that having discovered the fact that the registered owner of the truck was one Harbhajan Singh s/o Amrik Singh and the truck having been insured with the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 6), an application was moved before the Tribunal under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, for amendment of the written statement and for bringing the above facts on record. The only argument advanced on behalf of the present appellant is that the Claims Tribunal committed a serious error of law and procedure in not impleading the registered owner of the truck and the Insurance Company, as parties to the case. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 Insurance Company very forcefully argued that on the findings of the Tribunal that the registered owner had transferred the title and possession of the truck to the present appellant, without intimation to the Insurance Company and without getting the registration, transferred, the liability of the Insurance Company, under the policy was discharged. The contention advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the contract of insurance is a personal contract of indemnity and the same comes to an end and the insurance policy lapses as soon as the ownership of the vehicle, covered by the said policy of insurance is transferred to another by sale or otherwise. Reliance is placed on Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gyarsilal Jagannath Prasad Mor v. Pandit Sitacharan Dubey, AIR 1963 MP 164 and Balvant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126; and of the Supreme Court in Pannalal v. Shri Chand Mal, 1980 ACJ (SC) 233 : AIR 1980 SC 871 . ( 5 ) I have gone through the record of the case. Looking to the stand taken by the present appellant and the Insurance Company I feel sorry to state that because of the untenable stand and false pleas taken by the parties and the erroneous order passed by the Claims Tribunal, the victims of the accident of the year 1980 have not been able to get any compensation and must have lost all interest in the case. They might have been reduced to such poverty and helplessness that they are unable to arrange for defending themselves in this appeal. ( 6 ) SO far as the factual plea sought to be raised by the appellant is concerned, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion that the appellant is a blatant Her. His oral version was rightly rejected by the Claims Tribunal when he said that he had nothing to do with the truck involved in the accident. The learned Member rightly took note of the fact that soon after the accident, as deposed by the Head Constable Shivnandan (A. W. 4), it was the appellant who was present at the time of Panchnama at the scene of the accident and had engaged labourers to carry the truck which had turned turtle in the accident. When a legal notice was sent to him by the claimants, through their lawyer at Balaghat, he got drafted a reply through his counsel at Nagpur and denied his liability towards compensation, but accepted the ownership of the truck. When a legal notice was sent to him by the claimants, through their lawyer at Balaghat, he got drafted a reply through his counsel at Nagpur and denied his liability towards compensation, but accepted the ownership of the truck. He was brazenly dishonest and blatantly false when he went to the extent of denying his signature on the vakalatnama filed in the case on his behalf, by the counsel engaged for him. On the state of above evidence, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the truck in question, on the date of accident, was in ownership and possession of the present appellant and he cannot be absolved of the liability for payment of compensation to the claimants. ( 7 ) THE other legal contentions advanced on behalf of the present appellant, however, needs serious consideration. It is true that Section 31 of the M. V. Act, 1939 casts a statutory responsibility, both on the transfer and transferee of a motor vehicle to inform the fact of transfer of the vehicle to the name of the transferee. It is also true that under Section 103 A of the said Act, there is also a responsibility on the transfer, in whose favour the certificate of insurance stands, to inform the Insurance Company of the transfer and the Insurance Company may transfer the policy in favour of the transferee or may refuse the same only on the existence of certain conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of that Section. On the questions whether the Insurance Company is liable, even in the event of transfer of ownership of the vehicle and non-compliance by the parties of the provisions of Sections 31 and 103 A of the Act, the opinion of several High Courts is divided. The two learned Judges of this High Court, sitting singly, have however, taken a view that mere transfer of the vehicle involved in the accident, does not absolve the Insurance Company of the liability under policy which covers the third party risk. See Sonaram v. Jaipraksh, AIR 1986 MP 21 and Ghisalal Chetter v. Nihalsingh Bhagirath, 1993 MPLJ 798. The two learned Judges of this High Court, sitting singly, have however, taken a view that mere transfer of the vehicle involved in the accident, does not absolve the Insurance Company of the liability under policy which covers the third party risk. See Sonaram v. Jaipraksh, AIR 1986 MP 21 and Ghisalal Chetter v. Nihalsingh Bhagirath, 1993 MPLJ 798. The learned Judges of the M. P. High Court have relied on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Maina v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1976 Raj 71 and the Madras High Court in the case of Dharman v. N. C. Srinivasan, AIR 1990 Mad 14 . In my opinion, as well, the view taken by the Madras High Court in its decision, of the provisions of the Section 96 (2) of the M. V. Act are reasonable and acceptable being in conformity with the scheme and the object of the Act. The Madras High Court holds that in a claim case by third party, the defence of an insurer is strictly limited to what the statute; had chosen to provide under Section 96 (2) of the Act. The defence that no the sale of the] vehicle, during the period of cover, the policy had lapsed is not the one that is available to the insurer under Section 96 (2) of the Act, as against the third party claims. I, therefore, hold that although on the date of accident, the actual owner of the truck in question was the present appellant, the registered owner and the Insurance Company cannot avoid their joint liability for payment of compensation to the claimants. So far as the registered owner is concerned, if he has not discharged his statutory responsibility under Section 31 of the Act, of informing the registering authority of the fact of transfer of the vehicle, his liability for the accident caused by the vehicle involved continues till the transferee is not registered as an owner. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, as held by the Madras High Court in the case of Dharman (supra), to which I find myself in complete agreement, transfer of the vehicle is not one of the grounds under Section 96 (2) of the Act, on which the Insurance Company can advance a defence and deny its liability to the third party. In case where such a transfer is made of the vehicle without following the provisions by the party of Section 103 A of the Act, it would be open to the Insurance Company to proceed against the registered owner for reimbursement of the compensation amount which was required to be paid under the cover of the policy to the third party. That would however, be in an independent proceeding against the insured, based on the policy conditions of the insurance. As against third party, however, in a claim petition, the Insurance Company can have no such defence. ( 8 ) THE decision of the Division Bench of this Court, relied in the case of Gyarsilal Jagannath Prasad (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, information of the transfer was given to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had not sent any reply. On such facts, the Division Bench held that the company had impliedly assented to the transfer and, therefore, there was a novation of contract of indemnity and the transferee was in effect and in law, the person insured by the policy, even though his name was not substituted in place of the original owner. ( 9 ) THE another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) decided by Hon'ble Shri Justice G. L. Oza (as he then was and Hon'ble Shri Justice P. D. Mulye), the decision turned on the facts of that case and no occasion arose for the Division Bench to consider the effect of limited defences open to the Insurance Company against the third party claim, as provided in Section 96 (2) of the M. V. Act. In that case the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability for additional reasons that the original owner of the vehicle had intimated the Insurance Company of the transfer of the vehicle, but the transferee did not follow the formalities for getting the vehicle insured in his name. See paragraph 16 of the above mentioned report in the case of Balwant Singh (supra ). ( 10 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal (supra) is in fact not at all helpful to the Insurance Company and not relevant for deciding the legal question before me. See paragraph 16 of the above mentioned report in the case of Balwant Singh (supra ). ( 10 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal (supra) is in fact not at all helpful to the Insurance Company and not relevant for deciding the legal question before me. That was a litigation inter se in the Civil Court between the transferor and the transferee of the vehicle and the Court held that the transferee had become the owner of the vehicle irrespective of the fact whether his name came to be registered or not as such in accordance with Section 31 of the M. V. Act. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, since the Claims Tribunal committed a serious mistake in refusing to implead the registered owner and the Insurance Company, concerning the vehicle, as parties to the case, no relevant facts could be brought on record, with the result that the award has remained only a paper decree with no payment made by or recovered from the present appellant. In a claim case, where the name of the registered owner and of the Insurance Company is made known to the Tribunal, at any stage of the case, it becomes its statutory duty to notice such parties and to hear them before passing the award. Their presence before the Tribunal is necessary to ensure effective execution of the award and ensure payment under it, as is intended by the provisions of the Act. ( 12 ) FOR the above reasons, I hold that the present appellant cannot be absolved of his individual and joint liability for payment of compensation to the claimants under the award. I, however, consider this to be a fit care for sending it back to the Claims Tribunal with a direction to implead the registered owner Shri Harbhajan Singh s/o Amrik Singh, r/o Baihar, District Balaghat and the respondent No. 6, New India Insurance Company as parties to this case. The Claims Tribunal shall issue formal notices to the registered owner Shri Harbhajan Singh and the New India Insurance Company on their addresses disclosed on record. The Tribunal shall also issue notice of the date of hearing of the case to the claimants Nos. 1 to 4 personally and through their lawyer engaged in the case for them. The Claims Tribunal shall issue formal notices to the registered owner Shri Harbhajan Singh and the New India Insurance Company on their addresses disclosed on record. The Tribunal shall also issue notice of the date of hearing of the case to the claimants Nos. 1 to 4 personally and through their lawyer engaged in the case for them. After noticing all the parties, including the parties directed to be impleaded, the Claims Tribunal shall re-fix the case for hearing and after affording opportunity to the newly impleaded parties to file their replies and adduce evidence, decide the claim petition for the purpose of determining the joint liability for payment of compensation by the registered owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved. In deciding afresh the claim case for the purpose of determining the liability of the registered owner and the Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall keep into consideration the state of law discussed in this order by me in relation to the liabilities of the parties in the event of the transfer of the vehicle before the occurrence of the accident. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, the appellant shall bear his own costs of this appeal. Since it is a case arising out of an accident of the year 1980, let the Registry send back the record of this forthwith to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall dispose it of finally on merits within six months from today. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .