Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The claimant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by the medium of this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short, for setting aside the award dated 30.10.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P, for short “The Tribunal” in MAC Petition No. 34 of 2004 titled Rakesh Kumari versus Jugal Kishore and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,08,200/-came to be awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The Tribunal, after examining the claim petition, held that tanker No. HP-20-5935 and bus No. HP-20-A-2619 have caused the accident in which the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein sustained injuries. The insurer of tanker, i.e., the New India Assurance Co. was saddled with 70% liability and insurer of Bus, i.e. United India Insurance Co. was exonerated from the liability thereby directing Dilbag Singh owner-cum- driver of bus No. HP-20-A-2619 to satisfy the impugned award to the extent of 30%. 3. The claimant, owner, driver and insured of the offending tanker, insurer of bus No. HP-20-A-2619 and Balbir Singh owner of bus have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it attained finality so far as it relates to them. 4. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the owner-cum-driver of the bus to satisfy the award to the extent of 30%. Thus, I deem it proper not to discuss issues No.1, 4, 5 to 10. Accordingly, findings returned on the said issues are upheld. 5. In view of the dispute raised in this appeal, issue Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are required to be determined. Brief Facts: 6. Rakesh Kumari claimant filed claim petition being victim of a vehicular accident which was caused by the drivers of two offending vehicles, i.e., bus No. HP-20-A-2619 and tanker No.HP-20-5935, by driving the aforesaid vehicles in a rash and negligent manner on 18.5.2004 at village Jalgran in Una Tehsil, District Una, H.P. in which the claimant had sustained injuries. The claimant had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/-, as per break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The claimant had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/-, as per break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition was contested and resisted by all the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: (i) Whether petitioner Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of two vehicles (i) bus (No.HP-20-A-2619) and a tanker (No.HP-20-5935), by Dilbag Singh (respondent No.4) and Naranjan Singh (respondent No.2), respectively, on May 18,2004. OPP. (ii) If the above issue 1 is proved, to what extent did each of the two drivers contribute to the accident. OPP (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. OPP (iv) Whether the real owner of the bus in question was Balbir Singh and petition is bad on account of his non-joinder. OPR 2. (v) Whether the driver of the tanker was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. OPR 3. (vi) Whether the tanker in question was insured with respondent No. 3. OPP (vii) Whether the tanker was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. OPR 3. (viii) Whether the petitioner was herself a tortfeasor if so, to what effect. OPR 5. (ix) Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties. OPR 5. (x) Whether the driver of the bus (No. HP-20-A-2619) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. OPR 5. (xi) Whether the bus in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OPR 5. (xii) Relief. 8. The claimant has examined Rajinder Puri, C.M.O, Dr. V.K. Raizada, H.C. Rajinder Kumar and claimant herself appeared in the witness-box. 9. Dilbag Singh owner of the bus and driver of tanker Niranjan Singh also appeared in the witness-box and got recorded their statements. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and issue No. 1 came to be decided in favour of the claimant and against respondents No. 2 and 4. 11. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and issue No. 1 came to be decided in favour of the claimant and against respondents No. 2 and 4. 11. The Tribunal, after determining the claim petition held the claimant entitled to Rs.1,08,200/- as compensation which is not in dispute and also held that the tanker was insured and owner has not committed any willful breach. The driver was having a valid and effective driving llicence and directed the insurer of the tanker, i.e., the New India Assurance Company to satisfy the award to the extent of 70%. 12. The learned counsel for the insurer stated that the insurance company has satisfied the impugned award to the extent of 70%. 13. The Tribunal held that the owner of the bus has committed willful breach and saddled the owner Dilbag Singh with the liability to the extent of 30%. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the owner has committed willful breach. 15. The appellant is admittedly owner of the bus and factum of insurance is not disputed. The only dispute is that the insurance policy was in the name of the registered owner and not in the name of Dilbag Singh, i.e., transferee of the vehicle who has been directed to satisfy the impugned award to the above extent. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deciding the said issue. 16. It is apt to reproduce Section 157 of the Act as under: “157. 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.” 17. 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 claim. 18. 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. 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. 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.” 19. 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. 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. 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.” 20. 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. 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. 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.” 21. This Court in FAO No. 7 of 2007 titled as Ashok Kumar & another versus Smt. Kamla Devi & others decided on 05.09.2014, has also laid down the same principles. 22. Thus, the issues are decided accordingly and the impugned award is modified. The United India Assurance Company is saddled with 30% liability and is directed to deposit, the amount in the Registry of this Court, within six weeks from today. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimant. If the appellant has deposited any amount, the same be released in favour of the appellant through payee’s account cheque. 23. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Send down the record, forthwith.