JUDGMENT 1. Finding fault with the Claims Tribunal, fastening liability on the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the appellant herein, to pay compensation of Rs.3,22,749/-with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, awarded to the respondent/claimant, the present appeal has been filed with the delay of 156 days. Private notice has been ordered. However, respondents No.1 to 5 have not been served so far. Though private notice has been ordered as early as on 23.12.2005, Registry has noted that the respondents 1 to 5 have not been served sofar. Delay has been condoned, vide order in C.M.P.No.20343 of 2005, dated 05.06.2014. 2. Assailing the correctness of the award fastening liability, Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have seen that the person in whose favour, the insurance policy was taken, for coverage of third party risk, was not the owner of the vehicle, at the time of taking the said policy. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that where the ownership of a vehicle has been transferred to another, but the insurance policy continues to be in the name of the transferor and renewed thereafter in the name of the transferor, who was not the owner of the vehicle, at the time of renewal of policy, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The abovesaid contentions are untenable, in the light of an unreported Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CMA.No.426 of 1997, dated 28.06.2005, wherein, after adverting to the abovesaid contentions, this Court, at Paragraphs 7 to 11 as hereunder: “7. The first respondent has stated in his chief examination that the vehicle has been insured with Oriental Insurance Company. According to the third respondent, he had sold the lorry on 26.12.1989. Ex.B1, the advance receipt and Ex.B2, the settlement receipt were marked. The insurance policies, Exs.A7 and A8 would show that on the date of the accident, the policy stood in the name of the third opposite party. He is not the employer of the claimant. Ex.A7 is for the period 24.7.1991 to 23.7.1992 and the name of the third opposite party is shown as insured and Ex.A8 is for the period from 24.7.1992 to 23.7.1993 and the name of the first opposite party is shown as name of the insured. 8. He is not the employer of the claimant. Ex.A7 is for the period 24.7.1991 to 23.7.1992 and the name of the third opposite party is shown as insured and Ex.A8 is for the period from 24.7.1992 to 23.7.1993 and the name of the first opposite party is shown as name of the insured. 8. It is no doubt true that in their evidence, the first opposite party and the third opposite party have stated that the lorry had been sold on 26.12.1989 by the third opposite party to the first opposite party. But we also have to look at the probabilities of the case and see whether the person who had sold the lorry in the year 1989 would continue to pay the premium for the vehicle till 1992. The Deputy Commissioner had failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence from the proper perspective. As observed earlier, we feel that it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back and hence, we have gone through the records available, which are sufficient for arriving at the decision. 9. No explanation is given by the third opposite party as to why he continued to pay the premium for the vehicle though he had sold the vehicle as early as 26.12.1989. The Insurance Company has also not explained why it continued to renew the policy and receive the premium long after the date of transfer. The Insurance Company had originally disowned its liability because they had not been intimated of the transfer. 10. This question, viz. substantial question (iv), is no longer res integra. In 1999 (II) C.T.C. 473 [G. Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.], the Supreme Court answered the question whether the insurance policy lapses and the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle is transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was made/given. In that case, the appellant purchased the vehicle on 15.8.1974 and the accident took place on 18.5.1975. Even after the date of the accident and the sale in favour of the appellant, the insurer continued to receive the premium for subsequent periods. In that case, the appellant purchased the vehicle on 15.8.1974 and the accident took place on 18.5.1975. Even after the date of the accident and the sale in favour of the appellant, the insurer continued to receive the premium for subsequent periods. The Supreme Court held that the third parties' interest will be protected and once the company had undertaken the liability of third parties specified in the policy, the third parties' right will not be affected notwithstanding the failure to intimate to the insurer about the transfer. The following paragraphs are relevant : "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 statute ceased or not notwithstanding the passing of title and hence we respectfully 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 third 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 specific 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 93 of the Act ceases. In fact as observed by Supreme Court, the policy is to the vehicle and hence normally it should run with the vehicle. It is just to expect a reasonable time for the transferor 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 those provisions. In fact as observed by Supreme Court, the policy is to the vehicle and hence normally it should run with the vehicle. It is just to expect a reasonable time for the transferor 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 those provisions. If this is not allowed, the moment the vendor receives the money and puts the vehicle in possession of the transferee, the latter is not in a position to use the vehicle in view of Section 94 till a fresh policy is obtained. He cannot take the vehicle to his house passing through any public place. When the transferor is liable to pay penalty under Section 31 and also liable to be prosecuted under Section 112 for not notifying the transfer, we are clearly of the opinion such statutory liability makes him to retain the insurable interest as the liability subsists till he discharges the statutory obligations. We disagree with the view expressed in N. Kanagalakshmi vs. R.V. Subbharao, 1972 (1) APLJ 249 . ... ... ... The registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee is not necessary to pass title in the vehicle. Payment of price and delivery of the vehicle makes the transaction complete and the title will pass to the purchaser. When the policy of insurance obtained by the original owner of the vehicle is composite one covering the risks for his person, property (vehicle) and the third party claim, on passing of title the transferee cannot enforce his claim in respect of any loss or damage to his person and vehicle unless there is a novation. 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. 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 as it relates to the third party risks. We answer the second question accordingly." 11. The above decision has subsequently been approved by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 2003 (3) S.C.C. 97 [Rikhi Ram vs. Sukhrania], where the Supreme Court held that the object behind the beneficial legislation is that the third parties' right should not suffer on account of failure to comply with the terms of the insurance policy and it was held, "Whenever a vehicle which is covered by the insurance policy is transferred to a transferee, the liability of the insurer does not cease so far as the third party/victim is concerned even if the owner or the purchaser does not give any intimation as required under the provisions of the Act". Following the above decisions, we hold that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation.” 3. In the light of the above decision and discussion, the issue raised in this appeal is no longer re integra. Quantum of compensation of Rs.3,22,749/- awarded to the respondent/claimant, cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.360 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Coimbatore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount by making necessary applications.