Judgment 1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.240 of 2007, against the order passed in W.C.No.42 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in W.C.No.42 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, during the course of doing his work as a driver under the employment of the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as a driver under the employment of the 2nd respondent and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 26.07.2003, when the petitioner was driving the car bearing registration No.TN-04A-9177, which is owned by the 1st and 2nd respondents and insured with the 3rd respondent, it was involved in an accident at Palladam. In the accident, the petitioner sustained grievious injures and sustained fractures of his right shoulder bone, fractures in his right arm, right wrist, right knee and fingers of his left arm. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim as against the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that he had never employed the petitioner as his driver and that no employer-employee relationship prevailed between them. It was submitted that on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of the said car and that he had sold the car on 16.11.2000 itself. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The 2nd respondent did not submit any counter and had not participated in the enquiry. Hence, he was set ex-parte by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation. 5. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the 1st respondent's car had not been insured with them and that the driver of the car did not have a valid driving licence to drive the car at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the petitioner had travelled only as a passenger in the said car at the time of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and that the claim was excessive. It was also submitted that the petitioner had travelled only as a passenger in the said car at the time of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and that the claim was excessive. The 3rd respondent had further submitted in its additional counter that no claim had been received by them from the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent's car had not been insured with them. It was submitted that the F.I.R had not been filed and that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence to drive the car. It was submitted that the petitioner had only travelled as a passenger in the said car. 6. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation framed four issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Did the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to the injuries caused in the accident, which he was doing his duty in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent?; (2) If so, what is the nature of disability certificate. On the 3rd respondent's side, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2, namely Ex.R1-letter sent to 1st respondent and Ex.R2-insurance policy. 7. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation observed that no F.I.R had been filed by the petitioner. However, it is seen that a lawyer's notice had been sent to the respondents. It is observed on scrutiny of Ex.P1, wound certificate that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident when the car bearing registration No.TN-04A-9177 was involved in the accident. The Commissioner, on observing that the respondents had not sent any reply notice to the notice sent by the petitioner and an observing that no rebuttal evidence had been let in on the side of the respondents and on opining that merely because of non filing of F.I.R, it cannot be concluded that no accident had taken place, held that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and during the course of his employment under the respondent. 8. PW.2, Dr. T. Selvaraj, had adduced evidence that on examining the petitioner, he had found that the petitioner had sustained fracture of his right shoulder bone and that the movement of his right shoulder had been reduced by 5" from 15" to 10". 8. PW.2, Dr. T. Selvaraj, had adduced evidence that on examining the petitioner, he had found that the petitioner had sustained fracture of his right shoulder bone and that the movement of his right shoulder had been reduced by 5" from 15" to 10". He further deposed that due to the fractures sustained by the petitioner in his right shoulder, he would not be able to do any hard labour and that the petitioner would not be able to grasp any articles with his right hand. He deposed that the petitioner would not be able to perform his duty as a driver and had assessed the disability as 45%. The Commissioner on scrutiny of evidence of PW.2 held that the loss of earning capacity sustained by the petitioner would not be able to perform his duty as a driver and had assessed the disability as 45%. The Commissioner on scrutiny of evidence of PW.2 held that the loss of earning capacity sustained by the petitioner was 42%. The Commissioner, on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove that the salary of the petitioner was Rs.5,000/-per month held that the notional income earned by the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.3,229/-per month as per the minimum wages act fixed by the Government. The Commissioner, on observing that the age of the petitioner was 28 years on the date of accident as per Ex.P3, driving licence, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,72,335.21/-(60/100xRs.3,229/-211.79x42/100) to the petitioner under the head of loss of income due to disability of 42%. 9. It was argued on the side of the 3rd respondent that as the petitioner had worked only under the 2nd respondent and as the coverage of insurance had been extended by them only to the 1st respondent and not to the 2nd respondent, they cannot be held liable to pay compensation. RW.1, Ramkumar, the Senior accountant in the 3rd respondent's had adduced evidence that they had sent a notice to the 1st respondent regarding the accident and that the 1st respondent had not sent any reply to them. He deposed that the 1st respondent had sold his vehicle to the 2nd respondent namely Kaliyamoorthy, but the said Kaliyamoorthy had not taken steps to transfer the policy in his name. He deposed that the 1st respondent had sold his vehicle to the 2nd respondent namely Kaliyamoorthy, but the said Kaliyamoorthy had not taken steps to transfer the policy in his name. RW.1 deposed that as the petitioner had not worked under Kannan and as no employer-employee relationship had been established between the 1st respondent and the petitioner and as no F.I.R had been filed in the police station regarding the accident, the accident did not take place on the said date as alleged in the claim. He deposed that the accident had been set up and that as a false case had been foisted by the petitioner against the respondents, the petition has to be dismissed. 10. The Commissioner observed that the 1st respondent had sold his car to the 2nd respondent and the petitioner had also not disputed this. He further observed that the Insurance coverage extended by the 3rd respondent for the 1st respondent's car was valid from 29.08.2002 to 28.08.2003 and that the accident had occurred only during this period. No evidence had been let in on the side of the respondents to show whether the policy had been transferred after the sale of the said car. However, the Commissioner on opining that even if the car had been sold to others prior to or after the accident, the insurer of the said car cannot escape from his liability to pay compensation to the affected parties, provided that the car had been covered under a valid policy of insurance, as per the judgment made by Himachal Pradesh High Court cited in 2005 ACJ 2003 page 2009 and Rajasthan High Court cited in 2003 ACJ 2003 Page 1982, held that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Commissioner directed the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,335/-as compensation to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of its order and in default it was ordered that the 3rd respondent should pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of deposit. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has contended in his appeal that the learned Commissioner has erred in finding that the 1st respondent herein sustained injuries arising out and in the course of his employment in the absence of satisfactory evidence and proof and also in the absence of finding as to whether he was a workman. It was contended that the learned Commissioner has failed to see that the 1st respondent had not proved his employment as a driver under the 2nd and 3rd respondents either through documentary evidence or by examining any independent witness. It was also pointed out that the finding of the learned Commissioner that the 1st respondent is entitled to compensation by relying on the alleged issuance of notice through advocate by the 1st respondent to opposite parties is arbitrary as the commissioner had failed to note that the 1st respondent did not prove the service of the said notice to the opposite parties. It was contended that the learned Commissioner failed to note that Ex.P1 is dated 25.08.2003, but the accident was alleged to have occurred on 26.07.2003 and the 1st respondent did not give any explanation for the delay and no mention had been made in Ex.P1 about the version that the 1st respondent had driven the suit motor vehicle at the time of accident. It was contended that the petitioner had only travelled as a passenger in the car bearing registration No.TN-04A-9177 and not as a driver. It was pointed our that the learned Commissioner erred in finding that the claimant had sustained 42% loss of earning capacity without determining "all the work" which the claimant was capable to performing at the time of accident. It was contended that the learned Commissioner erred in fastening the entire liability on the appellant without fastening the liability on the insured and without passing an award against him, ignoring the legal principles and terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the vehicle particulars namely RC book, insurance policies are all transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. On 16.11.2000, the said vehicle was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the vehicle particulars namely RC book, insurance policies are all transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent. On 16.11.2000, the said vehicle was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 13. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum. This Court is of the further view that at the time of accident, the coverage of insurance for the said car was in force. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The question of transfer of ownership of car does not arise. This Court directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, to disburse the compensation amount to the applicant forthwith, after he files a memo, along with a copy of this order and after he is identified by his counsel. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, against the order passed in W.C.No.42 of 2004, on the file the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirapalli, dated 31.03.2006, is confirmed. No costs.