JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumber, District Udaipur (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,800/- and Rs. 1,07,200/- respectively as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of applications. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by the claimants-Bharat Singh and Smt. Bhuri Bai W/O Shri Bharat Singh with the averments that on 01.09.2013 at about 6:30 p.m. Bharat Singh alongwith Smt. Bhuri Bai was riding on the motorcycle, when a TAVERA being driven negligently by its driver collided with the motor-cycle, which resulted in simple and grievous injuries to both the claimants, they were treated at Mewar Hospital, Udaipur. It was claimed that on account of injuries suffered, the claimants were not able to work properly, resulting in loss of income to them. Based on the averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,60,000/- and Rs. 8,52,000/- respectively was claimed. 3. The applications were contested by the driver-owner of the vehicle denying any rash and negligent driving on his part and alleged that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant – Bharat Singh, for which he himself was responsible. It was claimed that the driver had valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured and therefore, the insurance company was liable to make payment of compensation. 4. The insurance company filed its reply and contested its liability. It was claimed that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who was a necessary party to the proceedings and in his absence, the applications were not maintainable. Allegations were made against claimant-Bharat Singh that he was driving the motor-cycle without helmet and he was not in possession of a valid driving licence and therefore, the applications were liable to be rejected. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues and on behalf of the claimants, both Bharat Singh and Smt. Bhuri Bai were examined and 52 documents were also exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 Driver. 7. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 Driver. 7. While deciding the objections raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, it was held that as no oral/documentary evidence has been produced, the objections raised cannot be countenanced, as it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, which was established from the insurance policy Ex.-16, the insurance company was liable to make payment of compensation and thereafter determined the amount of compensation as noticed herein-before. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in holding the appellant Insurance Company liable for making payment of amount of compensation. It was submitted that the policy was issued in the name of one Ramesh Chandra Sharma pertaining to the vehicle-in-question, however, he was not impleaded as party to the present proceedings and once the said Ramesh Chandra Sharma is not held liable for payment of compensation, as the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is only to reimburse the insured, who in the present case is Ramesh Chandra Sharma and as there is no award against Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability and therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside on this count only. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 10. It has not been disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle-in-question was insured by it vide policy Ex.-16, which was issued in the name of Ramesh Chandra Sharma. The said Ramesh Chandra Sharma was the previous owner / registered owner of the vehicle. 11. Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') reads as under :- "157. It has not been disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle-in-question was insured by it vide policy Ex.-16, which was issued in the name of Ramesh Chandra Sharma. The said Ramesh Chandra Sharma was the previous owner / registered owner of the vehicle. 11. Section 157(1) 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.]" 12. A bare look at the above provision would reveal that a certificate of insurance issued by the insurance company gets transferred for the benefit of the purchaser, in case the vehicle-inquestion is transferred during the currency of policy. As per the deeming clause which provides that it shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor-cycle is transferred w.e.f. the date of its transfer. 13. In view of the above fact situation, once the policy / certificate stood transferred in favour of the present owner of the vehicle-in-question, who has been impleaded as party to the present proceedings, there is no question of the appellant-Insurance Company seeking to disown its liability on account of the fact that the person indicated in the policy i.e. Ramesh Chandra Sharma is not a party to the present proceedings. 14. In view of the above statutory position, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant have no substance. 15. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.