ORDER : 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxi), 3rd (Ad-hoc) Additional District Court, Patan on 19th August, 2015 in MACP No. 376 of 2010. 2. The short facts leading to the present case are as under:- 3. The original claimants have preferred a claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act against the present appellant and other respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of untimely death wherein, Dashrathbhai Jethabhai was expired. As per case of the original claimant on 8th November, 2010, at about 11.30 a.m. deceased Dashrathbhai Jethabhai, was a passer by, who entered the truck to douse the fire and sustained burn injuries which was occurred due to touch live electric wire with the grass loaded in the truck and died on the sport. The age of the deceased was 42 years. He was the only earning members in the family and by doing labour works, he was earning Rs.3300/ - per month. The original claimants spent huge amount in funeral ceremonies, and in all accounts, they have requested to pass an award of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of compensation. After issuing notice to the respondents, original respondent No.1 filed his written statement vide Exh. 17 denying the contents of the petition and further contended that insurance was issued by the respondent No.2 as well as the liability and therefore, name of the respondent No. 1 should be deleted and necessary order can be passed against the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 i.e. present appellant appeared before the tribunal and filed his written statement vide Exh. 23 contending that driver of the truck was not holding valid driving license at the time of occurring the accident, and therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. That, no permission for goods vehicle was granted to the truck involved in the accident. 4. From the original claimant- Ranguben Dashrathbhai Raval was examined vide Exh. 18 as well as witness Dr. Babubhai Nathubhai Chaudhary vide Exh. 20 and certain documents were produced. 5. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an award by partly allowing the petition directing the respondent- Company to pay compensation of Rs. 4. From the original claimant- Ranguben Dashrathbhai Raval was examined vide Exh. 18 as well as witness Dr. Babubhai Nathubhai Chaudhary vide Exh. 20 and certain documents were produced. 5. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an award by partly allowing the petition directing the respondent- Company to pay compensation of Rs. 3,45,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date i.e. 20th April, 2010 holding the liability of the respondent jointly and severally by the judgement and award dated 19th August, 2015. Hence, this Appeal. 6. Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to legal provision as the accident was occurred due to touching of the live electric wire to the grass and deceased being passer by, entered the truck to douse the fire and sustained burn injuries and succumbed to those injuries. That, truck was stationary truck and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Hence, Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay the compensation. That, if any liability was there, electricity company would be liable to pay compensation. That, before the tribunal, arguments advanced and judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant rendered in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati and another Vs. Ishwarbhai Gangarambhai and others reported in 2014 ACJ 138 are not considered properly. It is further submitted that tribunal failed to consider the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgement and wrongly held liability of paying compensation. It was further submitted that the Insurance Policy was issued in favour of Babakhan Mahebubkhan Pathan and at the relevant point of time, he was registered owner as per record of the R.C.Book. That, he was not joined as party-respondent by the claimant, and therefore, also present appellant was not held liable to pay compensation. In support of his arguments, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered in case of Dr. T.V.Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 and in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati Heirs & L.Rs. Of Jigenesh Shankarbhai (Decd.) Vs. Ishwarbhai Gangarambhai & Ors. reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1127 . T.V.Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 and in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati Heirs & L.Rs. Of Jigenesh Shankarbhai (Decd.) Vs. Ishwarbhai Gangarambhai & Ors. reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1127 . No further arguments was advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and award passed by the tribunal and in alternative to remit back the present petition to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent-original claimants supported the judgement and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and submitted that indisputedly R.C.Book was transferred in favour of respondent No. 8 namely Raval Maheshbhai Vishnubhai on the date of the accident i.e. 8th November, 2010. That, once the ownership of the vehicle is transferred in favour of the respondent No.8, and the the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle is in favour of the old owner i.e. Babakhan M. Pathan, the policy will not be lapsed even if the intimation is required under Section 103 of the M.V.Act is not given to the insurer. Learned advocate has referred Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act arguing that when a person transfers the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto certificate shall be deemed to have transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of his transfer. It was further submitted that no request was made by the appellant to join electricity company nor any evidence was led by the appellant in respect of the accident occurred as alleged by the claimants. That, the liability of the driver of the motor vehicle truck cannot be ignored and which has been rightly observed by the tribunal. As deceased while dousing the fire occurred in a truck due to touching live wire to the grass loaded in the truck and died on the spot which was clear negligency on the part of the motor vehicle. Learned advocate has distinguished the judgement relied upon by the appellant and submitted that without any evidence produced on record, the judgement cannot be considered as they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned advocate has distinguished the judgement relied upon by the appellant and submitted that without any evidence produced on record, the judgement cannot be considered as they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. That, tribunal has rightly passed an award in favour of the original claimant and no interference is warranted by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the respondent -original claimants to dismiss this petition. 9. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.8 has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the original claimants and submitted that in the certificate of registration, name of respondent No.8 was entered on 12th August, 2010 which was produced on record and certificate of registration is a part of the proceedings before the Tribunal. These facts cannot be denied by the present appellant . That, motor vehicle was transferred in favour of respondent No.8 The policy issued by the present appellant in favour of Babakhan cannot be lapsed if any intimation was not given by the owner of the motor vehicle under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 8 to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and the documents produced on record, it is not in dispute that certificate of registration in form of R.C.Book has been produced on record before the Tribunal at page 49 wherein, the name of the respondent No.8 Raval Maheshbbhai Vishnubhai was entered by the concerned authority i.e. R.T.O Patan on 12th August,2010. These documents were part of the record before the tribunal. It appears that before the tribunal vide Exh.33, written statement was filed by the present appellant being respondent No.2 wherein, it was however, specifically contended that there was total liability of the electricity company for this incident occurred due to his negligence because electricity company has not maintained by keeping sufficient distance such live wire within proper level from the ground. It appears thereafter no attempt was made by the present appellant to join the electricity company as party -respondent before the Tribunal nor any evidence was led for shifting liability of compensation to the electricity company. 11. In the decision of this Court rendered in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati Heirs & L.RS. Of Jignesh Shankarbhai (Decd.) Vs. It appears thereafter no attempt was made by the present appellant to join the electricity company as party -respondent before the Tribunal nor any evidence was led for shifting liability of compensation to the electricity company. 11. In the decision of this Court rendered in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati Heirs & L.RS. Of Jignesh Shankarbhai (Decd.) Vs. Ishwarbhai Gangarambhai & Ors. reported in 2013(2) GLR 1127 wherein, it is the case that victim while throwing ball touched electric wire and died. Tribunal awarded compensation to the original claimant under Section 166 of M.V.Act. This Court found from the evidence adduced on behalf of the Electricity Company that there was a violation of statutory height to be maintained by keeping such live wire within 13 ft. on the ground level. In view of such fact, driver of the truck did not commit any mistake by parking it under the presumption that the hanging wire was at least not a live wire and there being an admitted violation of the statutory rules at the instance of of the Electricity Company in keeping such live wire, the entire liability was shifted to the Electricity Company. In the present case as discussed above, electricity company was not joined as party respondent by the present appellant before the Tribunal nor any evidence was led on this issue and therefore, the judgement cited by learned advocate for the appellant would not be applied in the present case. 12. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered in case of Dr. T.V.Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 wherein, it is observed as under:- 10. We agree with Mr. yer that the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of RTO. There can be transfer of tile by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of RTO as the owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. However, the appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of RTO as the owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these appeals, we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if in law, he is entitled to do so. 13. As discussed above, the ownership of the motor vehicle i.e. GJ-02-T-7722 was transferred in favour of the respondent No.8 as per certificate of Registration. However, the insurance policy stood in favour of old owner i.e. Babukhan M. Pathan. Here, this court would like to refer the judgement of Full Court of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Mallamma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 249 wherein, it was proved that during the validity period of the said insurance policy, the said vehicle was transferred from one person to another person; as per Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1968 whenever, a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be automatically transferred to the new owner; accordingly, instant policy benefits will also be automatically transferred from one person to another person. Therefore, it was held that National Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the compensation and interest thereupon to the claimants. 14. Another decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3315/2018 , Hon’ble Apex Court referring the decision in case of Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and anr. 14. Another decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3315/2018 , Hon’ble Apex Court referring the decision in case of Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and anr. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 382 wherein, the legal position was summed up as under:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that registered owner, insurer as well as KSRTC would be liable to make the payment of compensation jointly and severally to the claimants and the KSRTC in terms of the lease agreement entered into with the registered owner would be entitled to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner as stipulated in the agreement or from the insurer.” and thereafter viewed that the registered owner, Insurer (respondent No. 1) as well as the Corporation – appellant shall be jointly and severally liable to the claimants in respect of compensation that has been awarded by the MACT. However, insofar as the appellant is concerned, it would be entitled to recover the amount from the respondents i.e. from the owner in terms of agreement which was entered into between them. 15. Another decision of the Apex Court in case of Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Thippamma & Ors. reported in 2015 LawSuit (SC) 1079 in para 33 it was observed as under:- “33. In view of the decision in HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma & Ors. (supra), the insurer cannot escape the liability, when ownership changes due to the hypothecation agreement. In the case of hire also, it cannot escape the liability, even if the ownership changes. Even though, KSRTC is treated as owner under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988, the registered owner continues to remain liable as per terms and conditions of lease agreement lawfully entered into with KSRTC. 16. In the present case, indisputedly owner of the motor vehicle was changed and necessary entry was carried out showing new owner i.e. respondent No. 8 on 12th August, 2010 i.e. before the accident. The same owner was joined by the original claimants in their claim petition as owner of the motor vehicle. 16. In the present case, indisputedly owner of the motor vehicle was changed and necessary entry was carried out showing new owner i.e. respondent No. 8 on 12th August, 2010 i.e. before the accident. The same owner was joined by the original claimants in their claim petition as owner of the motor vehicle. Name of the old owner of the same vehicle was continued in the same policy would not permit the present appellant from escaping its liability of paying the compensation as awarded by the tribunal in favour of the original claimant as the ownership was transferred in favour of the respondent No. 8 herein. The judgement relied upon by the learned advocate for the original claimants would certainly help them. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that learned tribunal has committed no error or illegality in passing the impugned judgement and award dated 19.8.2015 in MACP No. 376 of 2010 in favour of the original claimants. Hence, present appeal stands dismissed. (B.N. KARIA, J) 17. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant requests this Court to suspend the judgement and order passed by this Court for a period of 8 weeks to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. 18. Considering the request being made by learned advocate for the appellant, implementation of this judgement shall be suspended for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.