JUDGMENT : For the death of one Chikkaramaiah in a motor vehicle accident, a claim petition was filed by his legal heirs seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had passed an award for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and exonerated the insurance company from its liability. 3. Against the said award the claimants and the owner of the vehicle are in appeal. 4. The facts pleaded before the Tribunal was that on 13/01/2011 when the deceased was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing Regn No. KA02/A2969, the said autorickshaw was hit by a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA27747, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Fortis Hospital, thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital and finally to Victoria hospital. 5. It was stated that the deceased subsequently passed away on 03/05/2013 i.e. after lapse of nearly 2 ½ years. 6. The wife and son of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation contending that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and therefore, they were entitled to be compensated. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the owner as well as by the insurance company. 8. The owner contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and therefore he could not be made liable. 9. The insurance company admitted that it had issued a insurance policy, but on investigation it came to know that the deceased had suffered injuries on 13/01/2011 and he had breathed his last on 03/05/2013, which clearly went to show that the death could not be attributed to the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. 10. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had not died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident and declined to award compensation towards loss of dependency. However, it proceeded to award a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in respect of the simple injuries suffered by him. 11. As regards liability, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company had issued the policy in favour of R.Selvam in the year 2011, even though the said R.Selvam had passed away on 14/03/2005. However, it proceeded to award a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in respect of the simple injuries suffered by him. 11. As regards liability, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company had issued the policy in favour of R.Selvam in the year 2011, even though the said R.Selvam had passed away on 14/03/2005. It stated that since there cannot be a contract with the dead person, the insurance policy was ab initio void and the insurance company could not be made liable. 12. The learned counsel for the owner contended that so long as the vehicle was insured it does not really matter in whose name the vehicle stood as on the date of the accident. In other words, he contended that once an insurance policy had been issued in the name of the dead person, the vehicle nevertheless stood covered under the policy. 13. He also contended that in the eye of law if the registered owner of the vehicle dies, his legal heirs succeeded to the said vehicle and it is the requirement of law that the legal heirs should inform the authorities to make necessary changes. He also contended that the intent of the legislature was clear in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages, in a case of transfer of a motor vehicle, the certificate of insurance as well as the policy 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. He submitted that in the instant case even though the insured passed away in the year 2005, the policy had been issued in the name of dead person continuously thereafter and the insurance company cannot take advantage of its own wrong doing. 14. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand contended that there can be no question of a valid contract at all, since one of the party to the contract was not even alive to give his consent to the contract. According to him, for the certificate of insurance to be valid, it was not only necessary, but mandatory that insured be alive as on the date of entering into contract. In other words, it is his case that if either one of the parties to a contract is not alive, there is no contract at all. 15. According to him, for the certificate of insurance to be valid, it was not only necessary, but mandatory that insured be alive as on the date of entering into contract. In other words, it is his case that if either one of the parties to a contract is not alive, there is no contract at all. 15. The learned counsel for the insurer/claimant supported the owner and also sought for enhancement. He submitted that there was medical evidence on record to show that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and that the compensation towards loss of dependency would have to be awarded. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 17. The primary question is as to whether the insurance company can exonerate its liability on the ground that it had issued insurance policy in the name of a dead person. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory for every vehicle plying on the road to opt for insurance cover. As a consequence, every registered owner is required to obtain necessary cover. 18. In the instant case, there is clear evidence on record that the registered owner –Selvam passed away in the year 2005 and yet continuously for more than six years the insurance company continued to receive premium and it went on issuing policy periodically. No doubt, it is quite possible that the insurance company was not aware about the death of the registered owner. However, it was nevertheless collecting premium in order to provide insurance cover for liability arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Whether the registered owner is alive or not, the primary duty of the insurer of the vehicle, is to provide insurance cover for the vehicle plying on the road if it had collected a premium and issued a certificate of insurance. In my view, the insurance company cannot escape its liability on the ground that it was not aware about the death of the insured at the time of issuing of policy, more so, when it had issued a certificate of insurance, not once but for more than 5 years. 19. In this regard, a reference is to be made to a few provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. In this regard, a reference is to be made to a few provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages Transfer of ownership. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the said Act provides that, in a situation where the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, dies, the person, succeeding to the possession of the vehicle shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name to the registering authority. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act acknowledges the fact that on the death of the registered owner, there is a transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the person who succeeds to the ownership of the motor vehicle is required to intimate the authorities regarding the succession in his favour. Section 155 of the M.V. Act, envisages that if death occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of M.V. Act, that by itself would not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of such event against his estate or against the insured. Section 157 of the M.V. Act, prescribes the procedure for transfer of certificate of insurance. The said provision states that whenever there is a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy shall be deemed to have been transferred in favor of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred, by operation of law. 20. Thus, when a transfer of ownership occurs, the policy and insurance in whose name the vehicle is standing, would also automatically stand transferred in the name of the person who succeeded to the vehicle. In other words, on the death of an insured, there is transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle to the legal heirs of the registered owner and consequently there is a deemed transfer of the insurance also to the name of the person who has succeeded to the ownership of the vehicle. 21. On a conjoint reading of Section 50, 155 and 157 of the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company would continue, even if the owner of the vehicle dies or has in fact died prior to the accident. 21. On a conjoint reading of Section 50, 155 and 157 of the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company would continue, even if the owner of the vehicle dies or has in fact died prior to the accident. Having regard to the ultimate object of the Motor Vehicle Act that every vehicle plying on the road should be insured, the insurance company cannot attempt to escape its liability by contending that the insured was not alive when it had issued a policy. 22. As a consequence, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability on the ground that the insured was not alive when it had issued the policy cannot be sustained and the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the compensation. 23. As far as compensation is concerned, in my view, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was absolutely no medical evidence to attribute the death had been caused due to the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident that took place 2 ½ years after the accident. Since the injury suffered was only a mild head injury, in my view, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the death was not as a result of the motor vehicle accident and not awarding any sum towards loss of dependency. 24. However, in my view, award of global compensation of Rs.50,000/- is required to be increased to Rs.75,000/-, as there is medical evidence to indicate that the deceased had suffered hemiplegea with Septicemia due to the accident. 25. Thus, the appeal filed by the owner holding that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation is partly allowed and at the same time, the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement is also partly allowed in the terms stated above. The insurance company shall deposit the amount including enhanced amount with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realisation within eight weeks.