JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This case has a chequered history and the claimant-injured has been dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar for no fault of his. 2. The claimant-injured became the victim of a road accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Thakur Chand, while driving Maruti Car, bearing registration No. DAV-125, rashly and negligently on 2nd May, 1999, at about 12 noon, near Bus Stand Karsog. The said vehicle hit the claimant-injured when he was sitting on the road side and was dragged to some distance. Thereafter, he fell into a 50 feet gorge below the road, sustained multiple injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Karsog, wherefrom he was referred to IGMC Shimla. He suffered paralysis and was not able to walk. 3. The claimant-injured is a labourer and had spent a lot of money on his treatment, was constrained to file Claim Petition No. 76 of 2001, titled as Binu Ram versus Lachhi Ram alias Laje Ram and others, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") on 5th September, 2001, claiming compensation to the tune of ` 5,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 4. Notices were issued to the respondents, three in number. They appeared and resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 10th May, 2002: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered multiple injuries in accident took place near Bus stand, Sanarli road on 2-5-1999 at 12.00 noon when car bearing No. DAV-125 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2, caused accident petitioner while he was sitting on a parafit as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the vehicle was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? OPR-3 3. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondents No. 1 & 2 are liable to reimburse the amount which they have spent on the medical treatment of petitioner from respondent No. 3 as alleged? OPR-1& 2 5. Relief." 6. Parties have led evidence. 7. OPR-3 3. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondents No. 1 & 2 are liable to reimburse the amount which they have spent on the medical treatment of petitioner from respondent No. 3 as alleged? OPR-1& 2 5. Relief." 6. Parties have led evidence. 7. After appreciating the evidence, the award was made by the Tribunal on 27th November, 2003, and compensation to the tune of ` 25,000/- with interest @ 9% was awarded in favour of the claimant-injured, constraining the claimant-injured to assail the same by the medium of appeal, which was diarized as FAO No. 72 of 2004. The appeal was allowed and the compensation was assessed to the tune of ` 4,60,000/- in favour of the claimant-injured with 6% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition till deposition vide judgment and award, dated 22nd August, 2005. However, the case was remanded with the direction to the Tribunal to determine as to who has to satisfy the award. 8. Parties appeared before the Tribunal on 26th September, 2005. Motion for leave to amend the reply was laid by respondent No. 1 in the claim petition, i.e. Shri Lachhi Ram alias Laje Ram, perhaps in terms of the remand order, was allowed on 17th June, 2006, and amended reply was filed. 9. Respondent No. 1 examined witnesses in support of the amended reply and also the insurer examined witnesses. The evidence was closed. 10. Respondent No. 3 in the claim petition, i.e. the insurer, moved an application for amendment of its reply, which was granted on 19th July, 2007, and amended reply came to be filed. 11. The Tribunal framed the following additional issues on 19th July, 2007: "4-A) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no insurable interest qua the vehicle in question No. DAV-125 corresponding to new registration No. HP-30-0771 as alleged? OPR-3 4-B) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party? OPR-3 12. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, held that the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is liable and made the award, dated 30th August, 2007. The said award is the subject matter of this appeal and this appeal is on the Board of this Court right from 3rd March, 2008. OPR-3 12. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, held that the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is liable and made the award, dated 30th August, 2007. The said award is the subject matter of this appeal and this appeal is on the Board of this Court right from 3rd March, 2008. This is how the claimant-injured has not been able to reap the fruits and virtually has been denied the justice. 13. This Court in FAO No. 72 of 2004, titled as Binu Ram versus Oriental Insurance Company & ors., vide judgment, dated 22nd August, 2005, has already determined the compensation. The only point for consideration was - who is to be fastened with liability? 14. The Tribunal took three years to determine the said issue, is an eye opener. 15. It appears that mandate of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") was not brought to the notice of this Court and even the Tribunal has not bothered to go through the provisions of said Section. 16. The simple question was - whether the agreement to sell can be a ground to defeat the rights of third party during the currency of the factum of insurance, which is in the name of the registered owner. Had the learned counsel brought the said provision to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court or had the Tribunal gone through the same, the issue would have been determined. 17. Before I return my findings on the said issue, it is proper to record herein that the registered owner was not arrayed as a party before the Tribunal, came to be arrayed as a partyrespondent in the array of respondents on the application of respondent No. 1, Shri Lachhi Ram alias Laje Ram. He has chosen not to appear and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him vide order, dated 28th February, 2007. 18. Respondent No. 1 in the claim petition, i.e. Shri Lachhi Ram alias Laje Ram and the insurer, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited have led evidence. The Tribunal, after discussing the evidence, held that though Shri Hariom, who is not a party to the lis, had tried to sell the vehicle by agreement to sell, but it was not materialized and failed. The Tribunal, after discussing the evidence, held that though Shri Hariom, who is not a party to the lis, had tried to sell the vehicle by agreement to sell, but it was not materialized and failed. Thereafter, the accident had taken place and even before the accident and after the date of accident, the vehicle was insured in the name of the registered owner, i.e. Shri Charan Lal Khatan. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail in paras 14 and 16 to 21 of the impugned award. 19. The Tribunal has specifically held in para 24 that the insurance company has failed to prove that the vehicle in question was sold by one Shri Charan Lal Khatan to Shri Lachhi Ram alias Laje Ram. 20. I have gone through the evidence and it is a fact that the insurer-appellant has failed to prove that the vehicle was sold at that particular point of time. Respondent No. 1 in the claim petition has specifically pleaded in leave to amend application and also in the amended reply that the insurer has settled the claim of the registered owner, Shri Charan Lal Khatan, with regard to the damage of the vehicle in terms of the claim made by the said registered owner relating to the accident in question. The said fact has not been denied by the insurer. 21. It is beaten law of land that a fact not specifically denied is deemed to have been admitted. Then, how can it lie in the mouth of the insurer that it is not liable when it has already satisfied the claim for damages arising out of the same accident. 22. Be that as it is, it is beaten law of land that the transfer of the vehicle cannot defeat the rights of third party. The insurance contract should be deemed to have been transferred in the name of the transferee. 23. 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, have held that transfer of a vehicle cannot absolve the insurer from third party liability. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 24. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in FAO No. 164 of 2007, titled as Sh. Vipan Kumar versus Naushad Ahmed and another, decided on 28.11.2014, and FAO No. 207 of 2007, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Santoshi Devi & others, decided on 13.03.2015. 25. The mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149 of the MVAct is to protect the rights of third parties and that is why, compulsory duty has been imposed on the owners to get the vehicles insured, so that, claim of third parties cannot be defeated. 26. The same question arose before the Apex Court in a case titled as S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the judgment herein: "16. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force." 27. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-injured. 28. Having said so, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-injured. 28. Having said so, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 29. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 30. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.