Judgment :- 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, particularly as the same is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. The van bearing Registration No.TN-21-AB-8123 involved in an accident on 03.11.2010. The son of the third and fourth respondents died in the accident. At the time of accident, he was driving the van. 3. Originally the van was owned by the first respondent. Before the accident took place, it was sold to the second respondent and the said fact is not in dispute. The insurance policy was taken by the first respondent. Hence, the claimants who are the third and fourth respondents herein made a claim in W.C.No.7 of 2011 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, for compensation for the death of their son due to the accident that occurred on 03.11.2010 as the deceased was working as driver under the second respondent. The Insurance Company took a plea that the policy was only in the name of the first respondent and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the policy got expired and did not survive. 5. The judgment reported in 2014(2) TN MAC 729 (SC) in Mallamma (dead) by L.Rs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants, makes it amply clear that there is deemed transfer of insurance policy on the sale of the vehicle. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “10. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants relying upon Section 157 of the M.V. Act, contended that there is an admitted transfer of ownership of the vehicle as proved before the Commissioner. Once the ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred to Jeeva Rathna Setty, the existing Insurance Policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the M.V. Act is not given to the insurer, hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999 (2) CTC 473 (SC): 1999 (3) SCC 754 . 11. Learned counsel has also brought to our notice a relevant portion from the “Schedule of Premium” of the Insurance Policy, a copy of which is available on record as Annexure P-1, which reads thus: B. Liability to public risk Rs.120-00 Liability to Trailor Rs.87-00 Add: for L.L. to persons employed in connection with the operation and / or loading of vehicle (IMT 19) Rs.15-00 Add: for increased third party property damage limits. Section II-I(ii) upto Rs.Unltd.IMT 70 Rs.75-00 Total Premium (A + B) Rs.1318.00 12.... 13. The counsel for the Insurance Company of course contended that as per their records, on the date of accident, the vehicle was registered in the name of Gandadhara. Hence, in the absence of a valid proof that the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred in the name of Jeeva Ratna Setty, the benefits of Insurance Policy cannot be given to Jeeva Ratna Setty. However, the said contention is contrary to record. A specific finding by the Commissioner to this effect in his order dated 28th February, 2003 reads thus: “The 4th respondent had stated that on the date of the accident, this vehicle was in the name of Sh.Gangadhara. But the applicants have proved the said statement as false through documents and on the date of the accident, the vehicle was in the name of the Respondent No.1.”” 6. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the appellant is liable to pay compensation. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. 7. In the result, the impugned award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul dated 20.12.2012 in W.C.No.7 of 2011 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 8. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount that was deposited pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.