JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE appeal is filed by the Insure against the award of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, in favour of the first respondent/claimant and it is directed against payment of the award amount to the claimant by the insurer. ( 2. ) THIS appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law; "Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai was right in directing the appellant to pay compensation, when the policy that stood in the name of the second respondent was not transferred to the name of the third respondent, as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act?" ( 3. ) THE facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows:- one Chandran @ Chandrasekaran was employed as driver in the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-2584 originally under the first respondent Vellaisamy and thereafter, the third respondent Sivasithan, After the vehicle is transferred by Vellaisamy on 24.6.2004, the Registration certificate is admittedly transferred in the name of the third respondent Sivasithan with effect from 19.7.2004. While so, on 22.8.2004 the lorry was driven from Thanjavur to Madurai and the lorry capsized near Chinnaiya chattram resulting in the death of Chinnaiya @ Chandrasekaran and the same gave rise to the claim petition by his wife Chinnammal against the past and present owners of the vehicles/employer of the deceased and the insurer of the vehicle in question on the ground that her husband died due to accident occurred in the course of and out of his employment. ( 4. ) THE claim petition, which was originally filed against only the past owner and the insurer arrayed as the respondents 1 and 2, was after due contest, dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the employment of the deceased in the vehicle in question. Aggrieved against the same, the claimant filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal after giving due opportunity to the claimant to prove the actual vehicle involved in the accident and also the employer of the deceased on the date of the accident. THEreafter, the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as third respondent and the claim petition was retried. ( 5. ) THE claim was contested on behalf of all the respondents. THEreafter, the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as third respondent and the claim petition was retried. ( 5. ) THE claim was contested on behalf of all the respondents. While, according to the first respondent/ past owner/employer, he is an unnecessary party to the claim petition and the vehicle in question was sold much before the accident, according to the third respondent/present owner cum employer, the vehicle is covered by the Insurance Policy and the insurer is hence liable to indemnify the insured in respect of third party risk and the insurer denied its liability on the ground that transfer is not intimated to the insurer and there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the subsequent purchaser and the subsequent purchaser is only a third party in so far as the insurer is concerned and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the third party in respect of the claim arising out of the death of the employee of the subsequent purchaser in the course of his employment. ( 6. ) THE Tribunal has, after retrial, held that the vehicle involved in the accident bearing Registration No. TN-28-2584 was originally belonged to the first respondent Vellaisamy and was subsequently sold to the third respondent Sivasithan on 24.6.2004 and RC and permit were also transferred in the name of Sivasithan with effect from 13.7.2004 and 19.7.2004 respectively and intimation of transfer in the name of Sivasithan was though not sent to the second respondent/Insurer within the time specified, the policy is by virtue of provision of law under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the registration of motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer of ownership and as the policy was in force between 1.6.2004 and 31.5.2005 and as the accident occurred on 22.8.2004 during the subsistence of the policy, the insurer is liable to answer the award as per terms and conditions of the policy. THE insurer has come forward with this appeal by disputing its liability to satisfy the award to indemnify the insured. ( 7. ) HEARD both sides. ( 8. THE insurer has come forward with this appeal by disputing its liability to satisfy the award to indemnify the insured. ( 7. ) HEARD both sides. ( 8. ) THE issue raised herein is as to whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the subsequent purchaser/registration certificate holder without any intimation regarding transfer of the policy to the insurer and without any transfer of the policy in the name of the transferee. ( 9. ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as our High Court and other High Courts on more than one occasion had to deal with this aspect and answered the issue in affirmative in the following judgments: A. (i) New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani AIR 1964 SC 1736 (ii) Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 586 : (1996)1 SCC 221 (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani (1998) 6 SCC 559 (iv) G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Others AIR 1999 SC 1398 : 1999 (3) SCC 754 (v) Rikhi Ram and Another v. Sukhrania (smt) and Others AIR 2003 SC 1446 : (2003)3 SCC 97 B. (i) Madineni Kondaiah and Others v. Yaseen Fatima and Others AIR 1986 AP 62 (Full Bench) C. (i) Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana 1989 ACJ 557 (Del) (FB) D. (i) National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Mallikarjun AIR 1990 Karn 166 (FB) E. (i) A. Manickam v. Raju and Others 2005 (3) CTC 727 : LNIND 2005 Mad 858 ( 10. ) AMONG the cases as stated above, the earliest case is New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the compulsory nature of the insurer against third party (victims) risks, observed that "once the company had undertaken liability to third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third parties' right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy". ( 11. ) WHEN the law so laid down by the Supreme Court was in force, similar issue was raised in different cases before the Andhra Pradesh, Delhi arid Kamataka High Courts and the same was decided by Hon'bie full bench of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts in the cases referred to above. ( 11. ) WHEN the law so laid down by the Supreme Court was in force, similar issue was raised in different cases before the Andhra Pradesh, Delhi arid Kamataka High Courts and the same was decided by Hon'bie full bench of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts in the cases referred to above. While the Hon'ble full bench of Delhi and Karnataka High Courts are of the same view that "third party liability of the insurer comes to an end on the transfer of vehicle by the insured to some one else unless the procedure prescribed for transfer of policy was fulfilled", the full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah and Others v. Yaseen Fatima and Others (supra) after analysing the relevant, provisions of law and compared the provisions of the Act with the provisions of English Act and after noticing the judgments of Courts of India and England, was pleased to hold that "once the vehicle is covered by the insurance, under Section 94 read with Section 95 of the old Act, insurance of the vehicle is made compulsory and the same is for the benefit of third parties and the compulsory insurance is not extended to the vehicle or to the owner and the benefit is for the third parties and Section 95 makes exception to the general law of contract and composite policy will not come to an end by mere passing of title in the vehicle to the transferee". ( 12. ) IT is observed by the full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court as follows: "We must make it clear that there are two third parties when such transfer took place. One is a transferee who is a third party to the contract and the other for whose risk the vehicle is insured. We have no hesitation to hold that the transferee who is a third party to the contract cannot secure any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a novation i.e., the insurance company, the transferor of the vehicle, and the transferee must agree that the policy must be assigned to the transferee so that the benefit derivable or derived under the policy by the original owner of the vehicle/policy holder can be secured by the transferee. Thus, it is clear under a composite policy, covering the risk of property, person, third party risks, the transferee cannot enforce the policy without the assignment in his favour so far the policy covers the risk of the person and property. He has no remedy against the Insurance Company........." "So far the third party risk is concerned, the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Sections 29-A and 31 read with Section 94 of the Act. Till he complies with the requirement of Section 31 of the Act, the public liability will not cease and that constitutes the insurable interest to keep the policy alive in respect of the third party risks are concerned. IT must be deemed that the transferor allowed the purchaser to use the vehicle in a public place in the said transitional period and accordingly till the compliance of Section 31, the liability of the transferor subsists and the policy is in operation so far it relates to the third party risks." ( 13. ) WHILE such divergent views are taken by the full bench of Delhi and Karnataka High Courts on one hand and Andhra Preadesh High Court on other hand, an identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was decided in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. v. Sheela Rani (1998) 6 SCC 559, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while recognising the view taken by the full bench of the Andhra Predesh High Court, held that "the transferee-injured cannot be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question and the victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee". ( 14. ) IN Complete INsulations (P) Ltd v. New INdia Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the three judges larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had again occasion to deal with the scope of Section 103-A and Sections 94 and 95 of 1939 Act and compared the same with Sections 157,146 147 and 156 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. ( 14. ) IN Complete INsulations (P) Ltd v. New INdia Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the three judges larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had again occasion to deal with the scope of Section 103-A and Sections 94 and 95 of 1939 Act and compared the same with Sections 157,146 147 and 156 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. IN that case, the accident took place and the vehicle was damaged and the transferee made claim for compensation to the vehicle for damages and the transferee of the vehicle contended that the insurance policy was not transferred in his name. The Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission awarded Rs.83,000/- which is the insured value of the vehicle to the claimant and the insurer was directed to make payment. On appeal by the insurer, the order of the Commissioner was set aside by the National Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission and as the claim of the transferee was dismissed, the transferee preferred appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court approving the principle laid down in the judgement of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, upheld the decision of the National Commission. ( 15. ) FURTHER, in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after detailed analysis of the earlier views taken by the Supreme Court and the full bench of different High Courts, was pleased to agree with the view taken by full bench of Andhra Predesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah and Others v. Yaseen Fatima and Others (supra) as recongised in New India Assurance Co. v. Sheela Rani (supra). It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "as difference between the two conflicting views of the full bench judgements, the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah and Others v. Yaseen Fatima and Others (supra), as it advances the object of the legislature to protect the third party interest". The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified the position that the third party will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed the procedure for transfer of policy". Thus, the law so laid down is applied in the subsequent three judge larger bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram and Another v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Others (2003) 3 SCC 97 cited above. ( 16. Thus, the law so laid down is applied in the subsequent three judge larger bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram and Another v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Others (2003) 3 SCC 97 cited above. ( 16. ) THE Division Bench of our High Court an A. Manickam v. Raju and Others (supra), applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Others (supra) and Rikhi Ram and Another v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Others (supra) and held that "as it is beneficial legislation, the third parties' right should not suffer on account of failure to comply with the terms of the insurance policy... and the insurance company cannot escape fits liability to pay the compensation." Thus, the principles laid down by the full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by the Division Bench of our High Court in the authorities cited above can be applied to the facts of the present case in full force. ( 17. ) HERE also, the vehicle was sold, while the insurance was in subsistence and though the registration certificate was transferred, the insurance policy was not transferred and the accident took place, after transfer of the registration certificate, but without the transfer of the insurance policy. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the failure of either transferee or transferor to give due intimation to the insured about the transfer of the vehicle does not cease the liability of the insurer so far as the third party/victim is concerned and the insurance company is hence liable to satisfy the award and the direction issued by the trial Court to that effect does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. ( 18. ) IN the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.