JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed against the award dated 26.05.2011, made in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai. 2. It is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that he sustained injury during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent. He laid a claim petition in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent/employer and the insurance company with which the vehicle of the 2nd respondent insured, filed counter affidavits resisting the claim. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, awarded compensation of Rs.1,62,655/- to be payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent/claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- ''1)Whether the insurance company is liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act when there exist only a contractual relationship between the workman and the transferee of the owner of the vehicle? (2) Whether the insurance company can be mulcted with the liability under Workmen's Compensation Act when the ownership of the vehicle was transferred from the insured to another person without any intimation to the insurance company? (3) Whether the insurance company can be fastened with liability when the transfer of the ownership of he vehicle from the transferor to the transferee even prior to the accident and when no premium was collected from the transferee after the transfer of ownership of vehicle?'' 3. On the above substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation failed to consider that the 1st respondent/claimant was working as driver in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-67-A-2872 belonging to the 2nd respondent who entrusted the vehicle to a contractor one Saravanan who in turn used the vehicle to transport the workers employed in the 3rd respondent Mill. It is further submitted that the above vehicle was originally owned by one Aliyar Kutty and insurance policy also stood in his name for the period between 14.07.2006 and 13.07.2007 and prior to the accident, the said vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, but the said transfer was not intimated to the appellant and that no premium was collected from the 2nd respondent after the alleged transfer of vehicle. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since there was only a contractual relationship between the 1st respondent/claiamant and the 2nd respondent after the transfer of vehicle, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In support of the said contention, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) National Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal vs. T.Balu and others (CMA(MD)No.848 of 2011, dated 28.03.2012). (ii) A.Manickam vs. Raju and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1544. (iii) United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. M.Periyasamy and another reported in 2010 ACJ 300 . 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record. 5. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and whether the relationship between the 1st respondent/claimant and the transferee of the of the vehicle/2nd respondent was contractual or not. 6. It is the contention of the appellant that the vehicle in question was originally owned by Aliyar Kutty and prior to accident, the vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, but insurance policy was not transferred. As on the date of accident, there was no employer-employee relationship between Aliyar Kutty/insured and the claimant, to compensate the claimant and further, the relationship between the 2nd respondent and claimant was contractual in nature. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 7. As to what was the relationship existed between the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent/claimant, it is seen from the record that before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, though the 2nd respondent contended that he orally agreed and let the vehicle in question owned by him, on hire to one Saravanan who used the vehicle to transport the employees of 3rd respondent Mill, based on a contract between him and the 3rd respondent Mill and that the said Saravanan only appointed the 1st respondent/claimant as driver of the vehicle and therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between the 2nd respondent and the claimant and it existed only between the claimant and the said Saravanan, the 2nd respondent did not produce any evidence to prove the contractual relationship between him and the said Saravanan. Therefore, the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation relying upon the evidence of the claimant and Ex.P2-FIR, held that the 1st respondent sustained injuries during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation relying upon the evidence of the claimant and Ex.P2-FIR, held that the 1st respondent sustained injuries during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent. From the above, it is clear that the relationship between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent was not contractual in nature, but it was employer-employee relationship. 8. At this juncture, it is necessary to have a cursory look at Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For that purpose, the said section is extracted below:- ''157. Transfer of certificate of insurance--- (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provision 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 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.'' 9. Clause 1 of Section 157 reads that the moment, the ownership of the vehicle is transferred to another person, 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. Clause 2 in the said Section contemplates that the transferee should intimate the transfer of ownership to the insurance company to facilitate the insurance company to make necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and in the policy. The said clause does not exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation, in case of non-fulfillment of the requirement. 10. The said clause does not exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation, in case of non-fulfillment of the requirement. 10. The erstwhile owner/transferor of the vehicle cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit conferred on him, by operation of the deeming provision in Clause (1) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the event of failure of the transferee to intimate the insurance company. Admittedly, as per Ex.R1, insurance policy, the vehicle is insured with the appellant company. By operation of the deeming provision, in Clause (1) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the insurance, stands automatically transferred to the name of the transferee namely, 2nd respondent. 11. Existence of insurance coverage on the date of accident is not disputed by the Insurance Company. The substantive right of the owner namely, 2nd respondent to get himself indemnified, cannot be denied, merely because, there was a procedural omission. Having collected the premium for the period, for which, certificate of insurance, has been duly issued, the appellant company cannot disown its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent. The contention of the insurance company to absolve itself from the liability to pay compensation, is contrary to the statutory provision and hence, it is rejected. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.