JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. Since all these appeals are arising out of the very same accident, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The parties are referred to as per rank in the claim petitions. 3. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed to set aside the award dated 10.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.267, 582, 371, 581, 269 and 268 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. 4. The appellant, who is the third respondent in the claim petitions, has filed the present appeals, challenging the award granted by the Tribunal. 5. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of one Muthaiah and Ronimoosh, have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.No.267 and 371 of 2007 and other injured claimants have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.No.582, 851, 269 and 268 of 2007, claiming compensation for the death of the said Muthaiah and Ronimoosh and for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 21.10.2006. 6. According to the claimants, while the deceased and other claimants were standing in Threspuram Junction, a lorry driven by the second respondent in the claim petitions, belonging to the first respondent in the claim petitions in rash and negligent manner, dashed against them. In the said accident, the said Muthaiah and Ronimoosh died and other claimants were injured. According to the claimants, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry/the second respondent, belonging to the first respondent insured with the appellant/third respondent and hence, all the three respondents in the claim petitions are liable to pay compensation. 7. The first respondent in the claim petitions remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 8. The second respondent has filed counter statement before the Tribunal and subsequently remained ex-parte. In that counter, the second respondent has contended that he sold the lorry bearing Registration No. TAB 9954 to the first respondent and Registration Certificate was also transferred in the name of the first respondent with effect from 31.07.2016. The permit of the lorry was also transferred in the name of the first respondent on 18.08.2006 and at the time of accident, the first respondent is the owner of the lorry. The insurance policy was in force on the date of accident and only, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation, if any awarded by the Tribunal. The permit of the lorry was also transferred in the name of the first respondent on 18.08.2006 and at the time of accident, the first respondent is the owner of the lorry. The insurance policy was in force on the date of accident and only, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation, if any awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The third respondent in the counter has stated that the respondents 1 and 2 did not inform about the transfer of the vehicle as per Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The vehicle was stolen by the driver, namely, one Rajendran and his father Simon @ Palanichamy from the first respondent and while taking the lorry, the accident occurred and hence, there is no vicarious liability arises hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 29 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P29. On behalf of the appellant, one Muthu Madasamy was examined as R.W.1 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.6. 11. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident and held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and awarded various amounts for the claimants. 12. Aggrieved over the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeals. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the transfer of vehicle was not informed to the Insurance Company and there is a violation of policy condition and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, is without merits. Now, it is well settled that the insurance is with regard to the vehicle and not with regard to the owner of the vehicle. When the vehicle is transferred, the insurance policy will be automatically transferred to the transferee, in view of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract below Section 157 (1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act:- "157. When the vehicle is transferred, the insurance policy will be automatically transferred to the transferee, in view of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract below Section 157 (1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act:- "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 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." 15. It is seen from the above provision, an explanation has been inserted by the Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 to Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said explanation is for clarification of Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The explanation itself mentions that the same has been inserted for removal of doubts. As per this explanation, deemed transfer as per Section 157(1) included regarding transfer of right and liability of the certificate of insurance and policy of insurance. 16. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by both the parties, and P.W.2, eyewitness, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, belonging to the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal has given cogent and valid reason for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant is not questioning the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. 17. The Tribunal has given cogent and valid reason for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant is not questioning the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. 17. In view of the above reasons, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed, directing the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.267, 582, 371, 581, 269 and 268 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the said award amount, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.