JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Appellants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, whereby they have questioned the impugned award, dated 30.09.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in MAC Petition No. 92-D/II/05/2000, titled as Smt. Kamla Devi & another versus Ashok Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 & 2 herein and against respondents Ashok Kumar and Kalyan Chand-appellants herein, from the date of the claim petition till its realization, (for short “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2. Claimants, Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Shri Balak Ram and Shri Balak Ram, son of Shri Nand Lal filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition on the following grounds: (i) That driver, namely Kalyan Chand had driven the vehicle-Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-39-2100, rashly and negligently, on 5.6.2000, at about 8.00 p.m., at Diala (near Jia) Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra and caused accident, in which deceased, namely, Raj Kumar, son of Shri Balak Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries; (ii) The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, have lost source of dependency and help and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. 3. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their objections. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 25.07.2006: “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of death of their son Raj Kumar? If so, from whom and to what amount? …OPP 2. Whether the Driver of erring vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? If so, its effect? …OPR4 3. Whether the respondent No. 4 is liable to indemnify only the respondent No. 3-A, the insured? …OPR4 4. Whether the vehicle was plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR4 5. …OPP 2. Whether the Driver of erring vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? If so, its effect? …OPR4 3. Whether the respondent No. 4 is liable to indemnify only the respondent No. 3-A, the insured? …OPR4 4. Whether the vehicle was plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR4 5. Whether the respondent No. 4 is not liable as the vehicle involved in the accident was transferred without complying with the provisions of the M.V. Act? …OPR4 6. Whether the respondent No. 3-A had transferred the vehicle involved in the accident in favour of the respondent No. 1 before the accident? If so what would be its effect? …OPR3A 7. Whether the petition is not legally and factually maintainable, as alleged by the respondent No. 3? …OPR3 8. Relief.” 4. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, made the impugned award; held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- from the date of the claim petition till realization of the award amount; saddled owner Ashok Kumar and driver Kalyan Chand with liability and exonerated the insurer-United India Insurance Company. 5. The insurer-United India Insurance Company, owner-respondent No. 3-A-Anupam Hardware Store and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 6. Owner Ashok Kumar and driver Kalyan Chand have questioned the impugned award by the medium of this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling them with liability and exonerating the insurer. 7. The only question to be determined in this appeal is - whether the insurer came to be rightly exonerated from liability? 8. Before, I determine the issue raised in this appeal, I deem it proper to record herein that the claimants have proved that driver Kalyan Chand had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, on the fateful day and had caused the accident, in which Raj Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld to the above extent. 9. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld to the above extent. 9. The insurer-United India Insurance Company had to prove and plead that driver Kalyan Chand was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, but it failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 10. Respondent No. 3-Kalyan Chand has failed to prove issue No. 7 and has not questioned the findings returned on the same. Thus, the claim petition is maintainable in terms of mandate of Section 166 of the Act. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue are upheld. 11. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 4-United India Insurance Company and insured was Anupam Hardware Store, respondent No. 3-A in the claim petition, at the relevant time. 12. The insured-respondent No. 4 has admitted in its reply that the offending vehicle was insured in the name of Anupam Hardware Store, i.e. respondent No. 3-A in the claim petition. 13. Insurance Policy, (Mark-B) was valid from 18th December, 1999 to 17th December, 2000 and the registered owner of the vehicle was Anupam Hardware Store, i.e. respondent No. 3-A in the claim petition. 14. The Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the insurer has not to indemnify, which is an eye opener for the said Presiding Officer, how casually he has dealt with the case. 15. Section 157 of the Act reads as under: “Transfer of certificate of insurance. (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.] (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen 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 and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” While going through the aforesaid provision, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that transfer of a vehicle cannot absolve insurer from third party liability and the insurer has to satisfy the award. 16. Admittedly, on the date of accident, i.e. 05.06.2000, the offending vehicle was not transferred in the name of appellant-Ashok Kumar. It was transferred in his name w.e.f. 17.06.2000. Thereafter, the appellant-respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar was supposed to give information regarding transfer of the vehicle to the insurer-Insurance Company. The vehicle was not transferred on the date of accident, thus the question of informing the insurer about the transfer of the vehicle does not arise, at all. If the offending vehicle would have been transferred on the date of accident, i.e. 5th June, 2000, that can not be a ground to defeat the rights of the third party. As per the mandate of the Section (supra), the insurance policy shall be deemed to have been issued in favour of the transferee. 17. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court Judgment in case titled as G. Govindan versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1398 . It is apt to reproduce paras-10, 13 & 15 of the aforesaid judgment herein: “10. This Court in the said judgment held that the provisions under the new Act and the old Act are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third party. This Court also recognised the view taken in the separate judgment in Kondaiah's case that the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. This Court also recognised the view taken in the separate judgment in Kondaiah's case that the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. In other words, a 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. 11. …………………… 12. …………………... 13. In our opinion that both under the old Act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It appears that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit, presumably in view of the conflicting decisions on this aspect among the various High Courts. 14. ……………………. 15. As between the two conflicting views of the Full Bench judgments noticed above, we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 62) as it advances the object of the Legislature to protect the third party interest. We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. In other words in accord with the well-settled rule of interpretation of statutes we are inclined to hold that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case is preferable to the contrary views taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) even assuming that two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant sections as it promotes the object of the Legislature in protecting the third party (victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the judgment of Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (AIR 1990 Kant 166 (FB) and AIR 1989 Delhi 88) (FB) (supra) differing from Andhra Pradesh High Court is not the correct one.” 18. The Apex Court in case titled as Rikhi Ram and another versus Smt. Sukhrania and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1446 held that in absence of intimation of transfer to Insurance Company, the liability of Insurance Company does not cease. It is apt to reproduce paras 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment, supra, herein:- “5. The aforesaid provision shows that it was intended to cover two legal objectives. It is apt to reproduce paras 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment, supra, herein:- “5. The aforesaid provision shows that it was intended to cover two legal objectives. Firstly, that no one who was not a party to a contract would bring an action on a contract; and secondly, that a person who has no interest in the subject matter of an insurance can claim the benefit of an insurance. Thus, once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 94 does not provide that any person who will use the vehicle shall insure the vehicle in respect of his separate use. 6. On an analysis of Ss. 94 and 95, we further find that there are two third parties when a vehicle is transferred by the owner to a purchaser. The purchaser is one of the third parties to the contract and other third party is for whose benefit the vehicle was insured. So far, the transferee who is the third party in the contract, cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act. However, so far as third party injured or victim is concerned, he can enforce liability undertaken by the insurer. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that whenever a vehicle which is covered by the insurance policy is transferred to a transferee, the liability of insurer does not ceases so far as the third party/victim is concerned, even if the owner or purchaser does not give any intimation as required under the provisions of the Act.” 19. The Apex Court in latest judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla versus Tilak Singh and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 404 has held the same principle. It is apt to reproduce paras- 12 & 13 of the said judgment herein: “12. In Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania [ (2003) 3 SCC 97 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 735] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had occasion to consider Section 103-A of the 1939 Act. It is apt to reproduce paras- 12 & 13 of the said judgment herein: “12. In Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania [ (2003) 3 SCC 97 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 735] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had occasion to consider Section 103-A of the 1939 Act. This Court reaffirmed the decision in G. Govindan case and added that the liability of an insurer does not cease even if the owner or purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the Insurance Company, as the purpose of the legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party. 13. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under Section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under Section 157 of the 1988 Act insofar as the liability towards a third party is concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the 1988 Act had come into force. Hence it is the 1988 Act which would govern the situation.” 20. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in exonerating the insurer-Insurance Company from liability and saddling owner Ashok Kumar and driver Kalyan Chand with liability. 21. The Tribunal has discussed the Apex Court judgment titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Shimla versus Tilak Singh & others, reported in 2006 SCCR, 473, but has wrongly applied it. The Tribunal has also not taken note of the fact that on the date of accident, the vehicle was in the name of registered owner-Anupam Hardware Store and was not transferred to Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Kishori Lal. 22. Having said so, it is held that the insurer-Insurance Company has to indemnify. The Tribunal has also not taken note of the fact that on the date of accident, the vehicle was in the name of registered owner-Anupam Hardware Store and was not transferred to Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Kishori Lal. 22. Having said so, it is held that the insurer-Insurance Company has to indemnify. Accordingly, issues No. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are decided against the insurer and in favour of the claimants. 23. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within eight weeks from today, before the Registry and on deposition, the Registry to release the same in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned awards. 24. The compensation amount, if deposited before the Registry by the appellants-owner and driver, be released in their favour through payees account cheque. 25. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 26. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on record.