JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28.2.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 33-N/2 of 2002, titled Sh. Vipan Kumar versus Sh. Naushad Ahmed and others, whereby claim petition of the claimant came to be dismissed, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant being the victim of a vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation, on the grounds taken in the memo of claim petition. 3. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition and following issues came to be framed: (i) Whether petitioner Vipan Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Maruti Car ( No.UGX-4001) by its driver (who also died) near Paonta Sahib Tehsil on January 15,2002, as alleged? ………. OPP (ii) If the issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? ………..OPP (iii) Whether the Maruti Car driver (deceased) had no valid driving licence at the relevant time. If so, its effect? ……….OPR-2. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-2. (v) Whether the Car involved in the accident was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.OPR-2. (vi) Relief. 4. The parties led the evidence. 5. Issue No. 1 came to be decided in favour of the claimant by holding that driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 6. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3, 4 and 5. Respondent No. 2- insurer has failed to lead any evidence on Issues No. 3 and 5. However, I have gone through the record. The respondents have not discharged the onus to prove these issues, came to be rightly decided by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deciding Issue No. 4. Respondent No. 2- insurer has failed to lead any evidence on Issues No. 3 and 5. However, I have gone through the record. The respondents have not discharged the onus to prove these issues, came to be rightly decided by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deciding Issue No. 4. It is beaten law of the land that unless and until the transfer is effected in the Registration certificate and other documents, registration continues to be in the name of the owner of the vehicle and so called transferee in whose name the vehicle was to be transferred, cannot be said to be registered owner. 8. I, while dealing with the issue of the same and similar nature in FAO No. 7 of 2007 titled Ashok Kumar & another Versus Smt. Kamla Devi & others decided on 5.9.2014, in terms of the apex court judgments laid down the same principles. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 19 of the said judgment herein: “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. 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 appellantrespondent 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 transfereeinsured 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.” 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. 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.” 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. 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.” 9. Thus, the findings recorded are wrong and illegal. Even otherwise, the purpose of granting compensation is a social one and to save the victim of a vehicular accident from starvation and social evils. The claim petition cannot be dismissed in view of Section 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Having said so, the findings on issue No. 4 are set aside. 11. Now coming to issue No. 2, the Tribunal has decided Issue No. 2 on the basis of the findings recorded on Issues No. 3 and 4. The question is, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to. The Tribunal has made assessment and come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,14,659/- which is not in dispute in this appeal. 12. The question is who is to be saddled with the liability. This Issue has not been decided by the Tribunal. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove whether it is an “Act policy” or otherwise. 13. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to remand the appeal by directing the Tribunal to decide the said issue, i.e., who is to be saddled with the liability. The insurer and owner are at liberty to lead evidence to that effect. 14. The parties are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 20th December, 2014 and the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter by or before 20th February, 2015. 15. Send down the record forthwith.