JUDGMENT and ORDER P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This is an insurer's appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2003 rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 37 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 5,23,800/- in favour of the claimant (wife of the deceased) against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4, insurer of the vehicle directing the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dariaganj, New Delhi-2, through its Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Dimapur, Nagaland to pay the award to the claimant within 30 (thirty) days from the issue of the order, failing to comply with, another 9% interest shall be awarded from the date of filing the claim petition till payment. 2. The facts are very short. The husband of the claimant went to Delhi with one Sri Paban Boro (driver) sometime in the month of January, 1993. On 19.01.1993, the claimant's husband purchased a used Maruti Car bearing registration No. DAG-4351 from Shri Ashok Arora. On 24.01.1993, while the claimant's husband was coming in the said Maruti Car driven by Sri Paban Boro towards Nagaland, on reaching Lucknow the said Maruti Car met with an accident and the claimant's husband received serious injuries and was admitted in the Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Lucknow. He succumbed to his injuries on 28.01.93. At the time of his death, the deceased was serving under the Government of Nagaland as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Kohima in Nagaland drawing salary of Rs. 4,700/- per month. The wife of the deceased/present respondent No. 1 filed petition claiming Rs. 6, 71,000/- in total before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nagaland, Dimapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M. V. Act', which was registered as MAC Case No. 37 of 1998. The insurer as opposite parties contested the claim case by filing written statement denying the liability to pay compensation to the claimant mainly on the ground that the policy is a 3rd party policy meant for indemnifying the loss or damage of the 3rd party within the meaning of MV Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether there was accident of vehicle registered No. DAG-4251 (Maruti) on 24.01.1993 and late Dhurba Rai died due to the said accident? 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether there was accident of vehicle registered No. DAG-4251 (Maruti) on 24.01.1993 and late Dhurba Rai died due to the said accident? 2. Whether there was a subsisting contract of Insurance between Dhurba Rai and the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 on the date of accident? 3. Whether the vehicle was having the valid documents and was driven by a duly licenced driver? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, the amount and to be paid by whom? 3. Except examining herself as PW 1, the claimant examined no other witness to prove her case. The driver Sri Paban Boro who was driving the accident vehicle was not produced to prove the fact of accident. Moreover, no police report and the death certificate was produced. The post mortem report was also not produced by the claimant before the learned tribunal during the trial. It appears from the record that the said driver disappeared and remained absconding and his presence could not be procured to give evidence on the said motor vehicle accident and death of the claimant's husband. 4. From the impugned judgment and order it does not appear that the learned tribunal, except issues No. 3 and 4, indulged itself in discussing the other issues namely No. 1 and 2. There is no finding on issue No. 1. It was of course, not possible to give any finding as the driver was absent and the police report was not made available before the learned tribunal and the Officer-In-Charge of the Sitapur Police Station under whose jurisdiction the alleged accident took place, did not appear inspite of issuing summons to him. The only document supporting the fact of hospitalization and death of the claimant's husband is the Ext. P/5, issued by the Gandhi Memorial Associate Hospital, Lucknow. None of the medical officer from the said Hospital was summoned by the learned tribunal to prove the fact that late Dhurba Rai as admitted in the said Hospital with head injury etc and died on 28.01.1993 at 9.20 A. M. However it appears that the death of Dhurba Rai was not seriously disputed by the insurer/opposite parties and as such I do not feel that a detailed discussions would be necessary on this issue. 5. 5. As regards the issue No. 2 it is an admitted position that the Maruti Car was purchased from one Sri Ashok Arora of Delhi on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1 lac on 19.01.2003, but the ownership of the said vehicle was not transferred to late Dhurba Rai who purchased the vehicle. It is also an admitted position that till the alleged motor accident took place on 24.01.1993, the said Ashok Arora was not a registered owner of the said accident vehicle. There was, therefore no subsisting contract between late Dhurba Rai and the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 (insurers). The subsisting contract, in fact, existed, between the registered owner Sri Ashok Arora and opposite parties No 3 and 4. No documentary evidence has been found to prove that the ownership of the aforesaid Maruti Car has been transferred to the deceased as required under the M. V. Act. 6. There was no dispute that the deceased purchased the accident vehicle from Ashok Arora inasmuch as the said fact has not been disputed by the said registered owner. When the vehicle is purchased and the possession of the same is handed over to a purchaser, the registered owner should inform the transferor of vehicle within 14 days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer to the registering authority under Section 50 of the M. V. Act and simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee. Similarly under Section 157 of the M. V. Act the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour. An insurer shall make necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. If Sections 50 and 157 of the M. V. Act are read together, transfer of policy takes place simultaneously along with transfer of vehicle. In the present case the provisions under Section 50 and 157 of the M. V. Act have not been complied with. If Sections 50 and 157 of the M. V. Act are read together, transfer of policy takes place simultaneously along with transfer of vehicle. In the present case the provisions under Section 50 and 157 of the M. V. Act have not been complied with. There is no record or evidence to the effect that the registered owner of the vehicle, being insured, intimated the fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicle requesting the transport authority to change the name of the registered owner and make necessary correction in the record. So also there is no report or evidence to show that the insured of the aforesaid accident vehicle, after selling the same to the deceased, applied for transfer of certificate of Insurance for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the policy in his favour as required under Section 157(2) of the M. V. Act. The requirement under Sections 50 and 157 of the M. V. Act could not be complied with because of time factor. It must be noted that vehicle was purchased on 19.01.93 and the accident took place at Lucknow on 24.01.93 on his way to Dimapur. There was elapse of hardly four days from the date of purchase of the vehicle and accident. In such circumstances, the question naturally arises as to whether the insurance policy would remain effective and the insurer could be fixed with any liability. The reply to the said question could be found in the judgment of the Apex Court in G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 754. It has been held therein that the Insurance Policy remains effective in respect of 3rd party risk but not in respect of the transferee's risks. It has been held further held that the provisions in regard to Sections 150, 146, 147 and 157 of the M. V. Act should be given purposive construction so as to serve the legislative intention i.e. to provide statutory compulsory insurance to Motor Vehicles against 3rd party (victim's) risk and since the insurance against 3rd party is compulsory, once the insurer company had undertaken liability to 3rd party incurred by the persons specified in the policy the 3rd party's right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy. In other words, insurance against 3rd party risk being mandatory under the statute cannot be overridden by any clause in the insurance policy. This is known as Act policy. In this regard the Apex Court observed as follows: Thus, we are clearly fortified in our view that the insurable interest in the property is not necessary in the case of public liability insurance. The test is whether the liability under the statue ceased or not notwithstanding passing of title and hence we respectively dissent with the view expressed by various High Courts that on the sale of the vehicle the insurable interest ceases and the policy lapses. We agree that any claim of the transferee in respect of his property and his person cannot be enforced against the insurance company. He being a stranger he cannot have any claim against the insurance company. But the 3rd party risk is concerned so long the obligations under the statute are not fulfilled, as contemplated under Section 31 read with Section 94, he continues to have the insurable interest till such obligations are fulfilled. Any prudent purchaser should take steps to get the policy transferred to him under Section 103. The insurer is bound to accept the transfer and can only refuse to consent on specified grounds. It is clearly an impracticable view to take that on passing of property in the vehicle, the policy lapses and the obligation under Section 94 of the Act ceases. In fact as observed by the Supreme Court the policy is to the vehicle and hence normally it should run with the vehicle. It is just to except a reasonable time for the transfer or to make the necessary arrangement to notify the transfer under Section 31 and secure the certificate under Section 29-A within the time mentioned in the said provisions.... 7. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case covers the present case but in my considered view it is limited to the transfer of certificate of insurance against 3rd party risk only. This Court is called upon to answer an issue whether, even accepting that certificate of insurance in respect of the accident vehicle is remaining effective after transfer of the vehicle, the appellant insurer would be liable to pay any compensation for the death of the claimant's husband. This Court is called upon to answer an issue whether, even accepting that certificate of insurance in respect of the accident vehicle is remaining effective after transfer of the vehicle, the appellant insurer would be liable to pay any compensation for the death of the claimant's husband. For answering the issue it is necessary to decide the status of the deceased. Is he a 3rd party? He is definitely not a 3rd party within the meaning of the M. V. Act. The meaning of term 3rd party needs no further explanation. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chollety Bharatamma (2008) 1 SCC 423 , referring to several decisions it is held that "injury to any person" is only meaning a 3rd party and not a passenger travelling on a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. In Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 , it is held that expression "any person" and "any passenger" in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Section 147(b) of the M.V. Act covers only driver, conductor or examiner of tickets of bus and no other employee such as cleaner (Khalasi) would be covered. In the said case a question arose as to whether under a comprehensive policy claim of compensation for a Khalasi who died in an accident would be paid. Rejecting the claim it was held that a comprehensive policy merely means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. But the deceased in the present case cannot be treated as 3rd party," any person" or "any passenger"; he being undoubtedly the owner of the vehicle. Being a purchaser of the vehicle from a registered owner the deceased is an unregistered owner who proceeded from Delhi to Dimapur but got killed in the accident, who would have registered himself as the owner of the vehicle on reaching Dimapur. 8. I have carefully perused and examined Ext. P/2, photo copy of the policy issued by the appellant/insurer wherein it has been mentioned clearly that it is an act policy only. Nothing has been mentioned therein that it is a comprehensive policy. 8. I have carefully perused and examined Ext. P/2, photo copy of the policy issued by the appellant/insurer wherein it has been mentioned clearly that it is an act policy only. Nothing has been mentioned therein that it is a comprehensive policy. Even if it is found to be a comprehensive policy, the Insurance company would not be liable to assume risk for death of or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle under Section 147 of the M. V. Act. This has been held in Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 . It is further held therein that such an insurance policy is only to indemnify the insured against liability incurred towards a 3rd person or in respect of damages to properties. An owner of the vehicle can only claim payout in respect of bodily injury to himself provided he is specifically covered by the policy in question. In the Ext. P/2 policy it has not been shown that it covered any risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle under the heading "own damage". Absence of such mention under the "own damage" would mean that the liability towards death of or bodily injury to such person would not be covered. The present appeal case involves death of an unregistered owner of the vehicle and it has already been found and concluded that he is not a 3rd party. An insurance company could not be held liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle if an additional premium is not paid for covering his life and property. The compensation for death of the owner or loss of his property are additional risks which are required to be covered by payment of additional premium and unless such additional premium is paid compensation cannot be demanded from the Insurance Company for the said purpose. On close examination of Ext. P/2, the Insurance Policy it is found that no such additional premium has been paid by the registered owner of the accident vehicle. On close examination of Ext. P/2, the Insurance Policy it is found that no such additional premium has been paid by the registered owner of the accident vehicle. Even accepting that such additional premium was paid by the registered owner of the vehicle, I am afraid that compensation for the death of her husband in the accident could be claimed by the claimant for the simple reason that it was the risk of personal life and property of the registered owner which was insured in the said policy and not the personal life and property of the claimant's husband. An elaborate discussion in this regard has been made in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 . In paragraph 11 of the said judgment it has been held that provisions of M. V. Act provides for two types of insurance -one statutory in nature and the other is contractual in nature and whereas the Insurance Company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the Motor Vehicle, in case any person dies or suffer injury as a result of an accident. In cases where owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, the additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. In paragraph 13 it is held that if it is contractual, its liability extends to the risks covered by the policy of Insurance and if additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. It is in this context, it has been observed that it is one thing to say that life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that the statute must be read so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. 9. In the written statement the appellant as opposite party in the claim petition demanded rejection of the claim petition on ground of misjoinder of parties. PW 1, the claimant, in her evidence deposed that on 24.01.93 the vehicle in which her husband was travelling met with an accident due to collision with a tractor trolly and received grievous injuries on his person. The details of the said tractor trolly have not been furnished. PW 1, the claimant, in her evidence deposed that on 24.01.93 the vehicle in which her husband was travelling met with an accident due to collision with a tractor trolly and received grievous injuries on his person. The details of the said tractor trolly have not been furnished. In the claim petition the owner and the driver of the said tractor trolly have not been made parties. In motor accident claim cases the owner and driver of all the vehicles involved in the accident must be made parties. The owner and driver of the said trolly tractor having not been made parties in the claim petition. The objection of the appellant/opposite party should have been considered by the learned tribunal but it was not done so. It was necessary to do so to find out whether there was any case of rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the accident vehicles or any of the drivers either of the said vehicles and attributable to contributory negligence or fault on the part of the driver of the accident vehicles. There is no scope for remand of the case to the learned tribunal for fresh trial. If the owner and driver of the tractor trolly involved in the accident as disclosed by the claimant in her claim petition, was made party or if the particulars of the said tractor trolly were furnished, probably the details of the said vehicle could not be collected by the claimant, but it would not be proper at this stage to pursue the matter for such details and remand the case to the Tribunal. 10. On consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the question involved in this case, I come to conclusion that the claim petition is not maintainable and the appellant/insurer has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband in the alleged motor accident either as 3rd party or as owner of the accident vehicle for want of personal life and property risk covered by any policy or contract on payment of additional premium as contemplated under the M. V. Act. 11. In view of the above, I set aside and quash the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2003. 11. In view of the above, I set aside and quash the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2003. Consequently the appeal stands allowed. No costs. Send down the LCR immediately. Appeal allowed.