JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 06.06.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,88,500/- and 20,633/- respectively as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum and 9% per annum respectively from the date of application i.e. 26.05.2011 and 04.01.2012 respectively. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by Smt. Mooli Devi & Ors. on account of death of Sunil Prajapat and by injured Kumbh Singh seeking compensation on account of accident, which occurred on 19.11.2010, whereby the Auto being driven by Sunil Prajapat on account of front wheel of the Auto coming out turned turtle, resulting in death of driver Sunil Prajapat and occupant Kumbh Singh suffering injuries. 3. Pleas were raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal disputing its liability based on the fact that the driver was in possession of licence to driver 'Light Motor Vehicle' only and as the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle, on account of violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of amount of compensation. 4. Further submissions were made that the vehicle in question though was registered in name of Smt. Sukhi Devi, which was transferred by Smt. Jamna Devi-insured, however, information in this regard was not given to the Insurance Company and the policy, which stood in name of Smt. Jamna Devi was not got transferred and, therefore, on account of the said aspect, the Insurance Company was not liable. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the vehicle in question was 'Light Motor Vehicle', the driver was authorized to drive the vehicle. 6. Further it was held that merely because the policy was not got transferred in name of the registered owner, the same would not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that despite non-information about the transfer of the vehicle and non-transfer of policy, the Insurance Company would continue to be liable for the payment of compensation. 8. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that despite non-information about the transfer of the vehicle and non-transfer of policy, the Insurance Company would continue to be liable for the payment of compensation. 8. It was fairly conceded that the issue of driving licence now stands squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., C.A. 5826/2011 decided on 03.07.2017. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 10. Provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') reads 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." 11. A bare look at the provision indicates that where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, transfer to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken, the certificate should 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. A further explanation has been appended that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance. 12. The provision takes care of the objections raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. So far as the effect of provision of Section 157(2) of the Act, which provides that the transferee has to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance, the Act does not provide for any consequence of non-information regarding the transfer and merely because the information is not supplied to the Insurance Company, the provisions of Section 157(1) of the Act cannot be rendered nugatory. 14. In view of the above, the issues raised by the appellant-Insurance Company has no substance. 15. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.