ORDER

1. On the application of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal against the second and third respondents is dismissed.

2. Heard.

3. The truck in question was insured by the first respondent-Insurance Company for the period 31-7-1979 to 30-7-1980. On 6-3-1980, it met with an accident and the legal representatives of the man killed in the accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Coimbatore for compensation. It was the defence of the second respondent who was shown as the owner of the truck and who had insured it, that he had, on 5-10-1979, sold the truck to the third respondent and given her delivery thereof. The third respondent had, therefore, been impleaded. The Tribunal disbelieved the defence and held the second respondent and, as the insurer, the first respondent liable to pay compensation to the appellants the sum of Rs 1,00,000. The first respondent carried the matter in appeal to the High Court. The High Court, upon an appraisal of the evidence concluded that there had indeed been a transfer and delivery of the truck to the third respondent on 5-10-1979 with the result that the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation. Since no intimation of the transfer of the truck to the third respondent had been given to the first respondent, the first respondent was also not liable. The decree was, therefore, passed only against the third respondent.

4. This appeal upon the application of learned counsel for the appellants, made when the hearing commenced, was dismissed as against the second and third respondents. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that the High Court was in error in the view that it took of the evidence and that the findings of the Tribunal thereon should be restored. The first respondent, as insurer, can be made liable only if it is found that the second respondent was the owner of the truck on the date of the accident. We are precluded from so holding having regard to the fact that the appeal as against the second respondent has been dismissed.

5. It was contended that, in any event, the first respondent was liable and reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(1966) 1 SCC 221] In that judgment, this Court considered the provisions of Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, both of which deal with the transfer of certificates of insurance. The provisions of the 1988 Act in his regard are different from those of the 1939 Act. By reason of the provisions of the latter Act, the certificate and policy of insurance are deemed to be transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of such transfer. The provisions in the earlier Act were that where an application for transfer of the certificate and policy of insurance to the intending purchaser has been made and no refusal to do so has been received within 15 days, the certificate and policy are deemed to be transferred in favour of the transferee of the motor vehicle from the date of its transfer. The two provisions being different and there having been no application for transfer by the second respondent to the third respondent of the certificate and policy of insurance of the truck, it is not possible to hold that they were deemed to be transferred in favour of the third respondent with effect from 5-10-1979, the date of the transfer.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.