JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Goswami 1. Heard Mrs. A. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents either on 10-10-2011 or today i.e. 12-10-2011. 2. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28-3-2007 passed in MAC Case No.25/2004, whereby the respondent No.1 was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- for sustaining injury in respect of a vehicular accident that took place on 22-10-1988 involving a vehicle bearing registration No. NLY-811. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Sections 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the Act. 3. The present appellant and the respondent No.3, who was arrayed as opposite party No.2 before the learned Tribunal had appeared and submitted written statement and took part in the proceedings. The present respondent Nos. 2 & 4 who had been arrayed as opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, respectively, before the learned Tribunal neither filed written statement nor contested the case. The respondent No.3 is the owner of a vehicle No. NLK-909 and respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. NLY-811. The Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Act. However, that application was rejected by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 6-10-2006. 4. Mrs. A. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraph 8 of the written statement it was stated specifically that an insurance policy was issued in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. NLK-909 in favour of opposite party No.2 in the Claims Tribunal. No insurance policy was issued in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. NLY-811 which was allegedly owned by the opposite party No.3 in the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there is no liability on the part of the insurer to pay compensation arising out of an accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. NLY-811. 5. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.3, namely, "whether the said car was having all the valid document at the time of accident?", on the basis of the materials on record, recorded a finding that the vehicle No. NLK-909, originally registered in favour of opposite party No.2 in the Claims Tribunal, on being transferred in favour of opposite party No.3 in the Claims Tribunal, was assigned registration No. NLY-811. It is an admitted position that the vehicle No. NLK-909 was having insurance with validity from 8-4-1988 to 7-4-1989. 6. Mrs. A. Modi submits the fact that the vehicle was transferred to the opposite party No.3 before the learned Tribunal was not communicated to the Insurance Company and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. The answer to this proposition was rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 97 , holding that the liability of the insurer does not cease even if the owner or purchaser does not give any intimation of transfer of vehicle to the Insurance Company as the purpose of legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party. The aforesaid case was rendered in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 7. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 , the Supreme Court has laid down that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also, the liability of the insurer does not cease so far as a third party is concerned even if the owner or the purchaser fails to give any intimation of transfer of vehicle to the Insurance Company. 8. Under the provisions of the Act, in absence of any permission granted under Section 170, the insurer would be entitled to raise only the grounds mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. Bearing in mind the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the Act, no other grounds has been urged by Mrs. A. Modi. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed