JUDGMENT : Both appeals arise from a common award dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV)No.421/2007. 2. M.A.C.A.No.1379/2011 is filed by the claimants therein challenging the award to the extent it exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and imposed the entire liability to pay the compensation on the additional 4th respondent in the claim petition, the State of Assam. M.A.C.A No.596/2013 is submitted by the State of Assam, where the challenge is against the liability imposed upon the appellant therein by exonerating the Insurance Company. (For convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment based on their respective ranks in the claim petition) 3. Brief facts necessary to consider the issues involved in these M.A.C.As are as follows: 3.1. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Kunjumon V.D., who met with an accident while working as a Nursing Assistant in B.S.F. at Assam. The accident occurred on 07.03.2007 at 8.45 p.m. while he was travelling in a Maruti van bearing registration No. AS-01/Y8991. The accident occurred when the said Maruti van hit against the rear side of a lorry. Consequent to the injuries sustained, he died and seeking compensation for his death, the claim petition was submitted. 4. The 3rd respondent Insurer of the vehicle submitted a written statement contending that, at the relevant time, the vehicle was under the control of the State of Assam as the vehicle was taken in custody by the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Assam, for hire as per his order dated 01.03.2007. According to him, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the coverage cannot be extended if the vehicle was used under hire or reward. It was pointed out that the premium was collected as a private vehicle, whereas the premium for a vehicle used for hire or reward is higher. Therefore, they sought exoneration from the liability. Accordingly, the additional 4th respondent, the State of Assam, was impleaded as per order dated 16.04.2010, but they did not contest the matter. 5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioners. From the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. 6. Accordingly, the additional 4th respondent, the State of Assam, was impleaded as per order dated 16.04.2010, but they did not contest the matter. 5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioners. From the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. 6. The basic question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company and imposing the entire liability upon the State of Assam, the Additional 4th respondent, is proper or not. The facts in this case are not in dispute. It is an admitted position that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was under the control of the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Assam, who obtained the possession of the vehicle from the registered owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, as per Ext.B1 order. After examining the materials placed on record, the Tribunal found that, as the vehicle was under the control of the additional 4th respondent, the Insurance Company was to be exonerated from liability and accordingly, the additional 4th respondent was held responsible to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.15,71,000/- and the same was directed to be deposited by the additional 4th respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.23,570/-. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. From the award, it can be seen that the Tribunal found that, as the vehicle was in absolute control of the Additional District Magistrate and the said control was taken over by the District Magistrate by exercising his powers vested upon him by the statute, which did not provide any alternate way for the registered owner than to hand over the vehicle to him, the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held responsible for the compensation and consequently the Insurer also will not have any liability. Thus, the registered owner and the Insurer were exonerated from the liability, whereas the entire liability was imposed upon the shoulders of the 4th respondent. 8. Thus, the registered owner and the Insurer were exonerated from the liability, whereas the entire liability was imposed upon the shoulders of the 4th respondent. 8. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal placed reliance upon two decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Orissa High Court, which are, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari and others [ 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC)] and National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Durdadshya Kumar Samal [ 1988 ACJ 540 (Orissa)] respectively. 9. However, as far as Kailash Nath Kothari's case (supra)is concerned, the factual circumstances of the case were slightly different. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the bus was given on lease by the owner of the vehicle in favour of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and thus, the accident took place when the bus was under the control of the Corporation. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision cannot be, as such, applied to the factual circumstances of this case because there is a subtle distinction with respect to the manner in which the vehicle happened to be entrusted with the control of the Additional District Magistrate. In Kailash Nath Kothari’s case (supra), the owner voluntarily leased the vehicle to the RSRTC. On the other hand, in this case, as rightly found by the Tribunal, when the Additional District Magistrate required the registered owner to surrender to be used for official purposes, in the exercise of the statutory powers vested upon him, the registered owner was without any alternative than to surrender his vehicle. Therefore, since the said action was not a voluntary surrender on the part of the owner of the vehicle and it was under compelling circumstances, it cannot be treated as an instance where the registered owner violated the contractual obligations. 10. As far as Durdadshya Kumar Samal's case (supra) rendered by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court Court is concerned, even though the same was rendered in similar factual circumstances where the vehicle was taken into custody by the Collector for official purposes, I am of the view that the same also cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. There, the accident occurred while the provision under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in force, where the definition of the owner was different. There, the accident occurred while the provision under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in force, where the definition of the owner was different. Besides, the policy therein contained a general exception to the effect that, in case of any accident, loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred during the period of requisition or commandeering by the Government for any purpose, the insurance company shall not be liable. In this case, there is no case for the Insurance Company that such a similar clause existed in the policy. 11. However, it is true that a similar question was considered by a two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepa Devi and Ors.[ 2008 ACJ 705 ] wherein, the liability of the Insurer when the accident occurred while the Government was using the vehicle under requisition for election duty, was considered. In the said decision, after referring to the observations made in Kailash Nath Kothari’s and Durdadshya Kumar's cases (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court exonerated the Insurance Company from liability by mulcting the entire liability upon the Government. 12. On carefully going through the observations made in the said decision, it can be seen that, the main reason based on which, such a conclusion was arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that, at the time when the vehicle met with an accident, it was under the absolute control of the government. Therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the registered owner. Consequently, the Insurer, whose duty was to indemnify the registered owner, shall also stand exonerated from the liability. 13. However, the question that arises is whether the said legal proposition can be accepted in the present case in view of the subsequent decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v.Vijay Kumar 2018(1)KLT OnLine 3088 (SC) = (2018)3 SCC 1 ), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others [ 2011 ACJ 2145 ] and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendri Devi [2020(4) KLT OnLine 1186 (SC)]. The decisions in Naveen Kumar’s and Rajendri Devi’s (supra) cases, were rendered by the three judges bench. The decisions in Naveen Kumar’s and Rajendri Devi’s (supra) cases, were rendered by the three judges bench. In Naveen Kumar’s case (supra), after referring to section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines the “owner”, it was observed that, even if there is a transfer of the vehicle by the registered owner, so long as the person concerned continues as the registered owner as per the records maintained by the Motor Vehicles Department, his liability will continue. The said observation was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to a large number of decisions and in paragraph 12 of the said decision, it was observed as follows: “12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the “owner”. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Reshma, (2015) 3 SCC 679 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 379 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 408] and Purnya Kala Devi [Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 142 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 251 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 304] .” The said view is being consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Therefore, the position that emerges from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that, even in the case of the transfer of a vehicle, so long as the insured continues as the registered owner, he has to be held liable to pay the compensation. Here, in this case, at the time of the accident, the 2nd respondent was the registered owner and there was no dispute about it. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not correct. 14. There is yet another aspect. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates the transfer of certificate of insurance. The said provision reads as follows: “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 tranfer 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 tranferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.” Thus, section 157 of the M.V. Act explains that when the insured vehicle is transferred by the registered owner to another person, the policy described in the certificate is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. Thus the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, is to ensure that, the insurance coverage continues even in cases of the transfer of the vehicle, so that the victim can get compensation easily and without delay. 15. Here, on carefully going through the factual circumstances and the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal, it is evident that, the decision was taken by the Tribunal exonerating the registered owner from the liability, by importing the concept of a deemed transfer of ownership on the basis of the requisition of the vehicle by the Additional District Magistrate, temporarily. However, in such circumstances, the deemed transfer of the insurance policy as contemplated under section 157 would come into play. As mentioned above, section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, was introduced, with the sole purpose of ensuring the continued coverage of insurance in the case of transfer of the vehicle. The said question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others [ 2011 ACJ 2145 ]. That was a case in which, the accident occurred when a bus was hired by the UPSRTC under an agreement with the bus owner. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Section 147(1) r/w. Section 2(30) and 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was observed as follows: “36. Thus for all practical purposes for the relevant period, the Corporation had become the owner of the vehicle for the specific period. If the Corporation had become the owner even for the specific period and the vehicle having being insured at the instance of original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy in existence to the Corporation and thus insurance company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 37. The liability to pay the compensation is based on a statutory provision. Compulsory insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Compulsory insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the third parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Act does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, a separate insurance policy should be taken. The purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act has been enacted with an object to advance social justice.” 16. It is also to be noted in this regard that, in Kulsum’s case, the decision in Kailash Nath Kothari’s case (supra), which was relied on by the Tribunal, was distinguished, as well. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, followed the decision in Kulsum's case (supra) in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendri Devi [2020(4) KLT OnLine 1186 (SC)]. A division Bench of this Court also followed the said decision in Sayed v. Gopalakrishnan [2016(3) KLT SN 80 (C.No.67]. 17. In KSRTC v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.[2015(4) KLT Suppl.27(SC)] also a similar case was considered wherein the accident occurred when the vehicle was under the control of the KSRTC. After referring to Section 157 of the M.V.Act, it was observed by the Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 as follows: “25. Apart from that what is provided under Section 157 of the Act of 1988 is that 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. Even if there is a transfer of the vehicle by sale, the insurer cannot escape the liability as there is deemed transfer of the certificate of insurance. In the instant case it is not complete transfer of the vehicle it has been given on hire for which there is no prohibition and no condition/policy of insurance as shown to prohibit plying of vehicle on hire. The vehicle was not used for inconsistent purpose. In the instant case it is not complete transfer of the vehicle it has been given on hire for which there is no prohibition and no condition/policy of insurance as shown to prohibit plying of vehicle on hire. The vehicle was not used for inconsistent purpose. Thus, in the absence of any legal prohibition and any violation of terms and conditions of the policy, more so, in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act of 1988, we are of considered opinion that the insurer cannot escape the liability. 26. Now, we come to the question of exclusion of contractual liability under second proviso to Section 147(1). When we read provisions of Section 147 with Section 157 together, it leaves no room for any doubt that there is deemed transfer of policy in case of transfer of vehicle. Hence, liability of insurer continues notwithstanding the contract of transfer of vehicle, such contractual liability cannot be said to be excluded by virtue of second proviso to Section 147(1) of Act of 1988. Higher purchase agreement, an agreement for lease or an agreement for hypothecation are covered under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988. A person in possession is considered to be an owner of the vehicle under such agreements. In case such contractual liability is excluded then anomalous results would occur and financer under higher purchase agreement would be held liable and so on. In our view, an agreement for lease on hire cannot be said to be contract envisaged for exclusion under contractual liability in second proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988. The High Court has erred in holding otherwise.” 18. Of course it is true that, as far as KSRTC's case (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion as referred to above, taking note of the fact that at the relevant time, the vehicle was given on hire to the KSRTC and there was no prohibition in hiring the vehicle in that case, whereas the case of the Insurance Company in this case is that there was an express prohibition as per the terms of the policy against the hiring of the vehicle since the vehicle involved was a private vehicle. However, I am of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, that distinction will not have any relevance at all. However, I am of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, that distinction will not have any relevance at all. As observed above, here, the vehicle was taken in custody by the Additional District Magistrate in the exercise of his statutory powers for using the said vehicle for public purposes. Thus the vehicle was surrendered under such a direction, as the registered owner was under an obligation to abide by the same. Hence the surrender of the vehicle in such circumstances cannot be treated as a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the principles laid down in the decisions of the Kulsum’s, Rajendri Devi’s and KSRTC’s (supra) are applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the aforesaid observations would lead to a definite conclusion that, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability was not at all proper. 19. Thus the aforesaid observations can be summarised in the manner as follows: In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar's case (supra), which was rendered by the three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even if the vehicle is transferred, the registered owner would continue to be responsible to pay the compensation in respect of the accident if any occurred. Similarly, by virtue of the operation of Section 157, if the vehicle is transferred, the insurance policy of the vehicle is deemed to have been transferred along with the vehicle and in such an event, the liability of the insurer will continue. In this case, by virtue of the requisition of the vehicle by the Additional District Magistrate, there was a deemed transfer of the said vehicle by the registered owner to the Government, for a certain period. Thus, in the light of the principles discussed above, while effecting such transfer, the policy also was transferred along with the vehicle. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. It is also to be noted in this regard that the Insurance Company does not have a case that there were any other violations on the part of any of the parties, such as; the vehicle being driven by an incompetent person or such other matters that affect the coverage of the policy. It is also to be noted in this regard that the Insurance Company does not have a case that there were any other violations on the part of any of the parties, such as; the vehicle being driven by an incompetent person or such other matters that affect the coverage of the policy. Accordingly, the award dated 12.08.2010 in OP(MV)No.421/2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala shall stand set aside to the extent the 3rd respondent in the claim petition was exonerated from the liability and the liability was mulcted upon the additional 4th respondent. It is declared that, the 3rd respondent shall be liable to pay the compensation, being the insurer of the said vehicle and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent along with interest and costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.