JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The National Insurance Company Ltd., the third respondent in O. P. (MV) No. 426/89 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Kottayam is the appellant before us. The 2nd respondent is the claimant and the first respondent is the transferee of the offending vehicle involved in the case. The 2nd respondent filed the above application claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 29-12-1988 involving two vehicles, one is motor cycle KLO 1956 and the other is autorickshaw KRK 6529. After the enquiry the Tribunal found that the driver of the autorickshaw was negligent. Finally it passed an award allowing a sum of Rs. 60,780/- with 12% interest as compensation. It also found that the transferee was primarily liable to pay the compensation, but since the existence of insurance policy was admitted the insurer was made liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the compensation awarded. The Insurance Company being dissatisfied with the award filed this appeal. 2. The only point which requires to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the transferee of the vehicle had not intimated the factum of transfer to the insurance company and hence it has no liability to satisfy the award. He places reliance on S.103A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said section contemplates an application for transfer of certificate of insurance and consequent fictional transfer with effect from the date of transfer. In order to transfer the certificate of insurance along with transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle transferor has to apply in the prescribed form to the insurer for such transfer and the policy described in the certificate in favour of the transferee. If within fifteen days of the receipt of such application by the insurer, the insurer has not intimated the insured his refusal to transfer the certificate and the policy, then there shall be a deemed transfer in favour of the transferee with effect from the date of transfer. However, the appellant in this case admits that the transferor has intimated the transfer to the registering authority as required under S.31 of the Act. However, the appellant in this case admits that the transferor has intimated the transfer to the registering authority as required under S.31 of the Act. S.31 deals with transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle registered under Chap.3. This is different from the transfer contemplated under S.103A which relates to transfer of certificate of insurance alone. 3. Thus what is involved in this case is the default committed by the transferor to intimate the fact of transfer to the insurer as required under S.103A. Therefore the question that emerges is that by virtue of the aforesaid default of the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, can the insurance company avoid the payment of compensation to the third party (victim)? No; insurer cannot disown the liability in view of the provisions contained in S. 94 and 95 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1996 (1) SCC 221 while dealing with the relevant provisions contained in old Act and New Act held thus: "Now, under the old Act although the insurer could refuse to transfer the certificate of insurance in certain circumstances and the transfer was not automatic as under the new Act, there was under the old law protection to third parties, that is victims of the accident. The protection was available by virtue of S. 94 and 95 of the old Act." In New Asiatic Ins, Co. v. Pessumal AIR 1964 SC 1736 the Supreme Court observed thus: "Chap.8 of the Act, it appears from the heading, makes provision for insurance of the vehicle against third party risks, that is to say, its provisions ensure that third parties who suffer on account of the user of the motor vehicle would be able to get damages for injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages will not be dependent on the financial condition of the driver of the vehicle whose user led to the causing of the injuries. The provisions have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure this object of the enactment." 4. The main question that came up for examination before the Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. The provisions have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure this object of the enactment." 4. The main question that came up for examination before the Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 781 was whether the insurance policy lapses and consequently the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/ intimation as prescribed under S.103A of the Act was made/given. While dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed as below: "It is incorrect to assume that the moment the title of the vehicle passes to the transferee the statutory obligation under S.94 ceases and the original owner is no longer guilt of causing or allowing the purchaser to use the vehicle. The question is when does the statutory liability cease? The mere passing of title in the vehicle to the transferee will not put an end to this liability. For this purpose we must examine two more previsions of the Act." (Emphasis supplied) Thereafter the court examined the provisions contained in S. 31 and 29A and said that till the transferor fulfills the statutory obligation under S.31 his liability continues and that he is the ostensible owner of the vehicle so long as the registration is changed. What we could perceive is that both under the old and the new Act the legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. The following observation in the above judgment is very relevant: "The insurable interest in this case is not the proprietary interest but the public liability, not to run the vehicle or cause or allow any person to run the vehicle without insurance and also to notify the transfer of such vehicle to the registering authority. So long such obligation continues notwithstanding the cessation of proprietary interest, the insurable interest which is the foundation for the continuance of the operation of the policy stands". 5. Notwithstanding above the counsel for the insurance company submitted that the company's right to proceed against the owner or driver of the vehicle or any other person shall be protected in view of the alternate contention that the liability of the insurer is limited. Of course, this protection is available under sub-s.(4) of S.96 of the Act. We do not propose to decide the merits of this contention. Of course, this protection is available under sub-s.(4) of S.96 of the Act. We do not propose to decide the merits of this contention. But we order that the right of the appellant insurer available under S.96(4) of the Act is reserved. Subject to the above reservation, this appeal is dismissed.