ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President :- In this case Mr. Ratish Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on the facts set out by the respondent before the District Forum below impugned order cannot be sustained. Admitted facts of this case are that Maruti Van bearing Registration No. HPY-1177 was registered in the name of one Sh. Pardeep Sharma as its owner. This was purchased by the respondent in the month of April, 1998. After its policy had expired respondent got it renewed in the name of its registered owner i.e. Sh. Pardeep Sharma and not in his own name. This was not renewed covering the period from 14.5.1998 to 13.5.1999. It met with an accident on 20.12.1998 near Mashobra when the policy was in force. 2. Claim was lodged by the respondent with the Insurance Company alongwith all relevant documents. It was repudiated on 9.9.1999. District Forum below after considering the material before it has allowed the complaint to indemnify the respondent to the extent of Rs. 39,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 16.10.1999 till realization besides litigation cost, Rs. 1500 3. Mr. Sharma submitted that in the face of admitted position vehicle stood registered in the name of its registered owner i.e. Shri Pardeep Sharma on the date of accident. So much so that after the policy had expired after the vehicle was purchased by the respondent, he again got the policy renewed from the appellant in favour of the registered owner instead of his own name. Thus according to him there was no insurable interest in favour of the respondent. By referring to the provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Mr. Sharma pointed out that in no case impugned order can be sustained. This plea was contested and resisted by Mr. Attri, learned Counsel for the respondent. Per him appellant was well aware regarding transfer of vehicle by the registered owner in favour of his client. That being the factual position, appellant cannot be allowed to raise a technical plea with a view to defeat his clients just claim. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 4. From narration of the above facts it is clear that the respondent is claiming compensation for the damage to his vehicle. That being the factual position, appellant cannot be allowed to raise a technical plea with a view to defeat his clients just claim. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 4. From narration of the above facts it is clear that the respondent is claiming compensation for the damage to his vehicle. He thus cannot be termed as a third party, within the meaning of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Suffice to say in this behalf that so far submission of Mr. Attri based on this Section is concerned it is without any substance. In the context of third party claim against an insured on purchaser cannot escape its liability. This is in consonance with the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is meant to provide compensation a third party. Respondent is not a third party we feel that he was not entitled to be indemnified as ordered by the Forum below. 5. In addition to this, whether a transferee of the vehicle as in the present case, without getting the policy transferred from the insurer necessary changes in regard to the effect of transfer of certificate of Insurance and policy described in the certificate in his favour cannot asked for being indemnified, is no more rest integra. This question came up for consideration before Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586, and claim of the insured like respondent in the present case was negatives by this three Judge Bench decision. To similar effect is another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1999(3) Supreme Court Cases 754, wherein while dismissing the claim of the appellant before the said Court identical observations were made. 5. No other point was urged. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a result of it order dated 1.4.2004 in complaint No. 1069/99 passed by the District Forum below in case titled as Sant Ram Chauhan v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is hereby quashed and set aside, thus dismissing the said complaint. All interim orders passed in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.