( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal arising under the workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity "the W. C. Act")

( 3 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award, dt. 28-9-2004, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-l at Hyderabad (for brevity "the tribunal"), partly allowing the application in w. C. No. 102 of 2003 and granting a sum of rs. 3,79,141/- towards compensation to the applicants for the death of the deceased by name one Sri K. Shekar, who died on 14-7-2003 due to the injury sustained by him in the accident occurred on 13-7-2003.

( 4 ) THE appellant is the Insurance company, the respondents 1 to 4 are the applicants and the respondent No. 5 is the present owner of the vehicle.

( 5 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellant, the respondents 1 to 4 and the respondent No. 5 will be referred to as "the insurance Company", "the applicants" and "the transferee owner", respectively.

( 6 ) THE brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that the deceased, while driving the lorry bearing Nc AAT-4056 of the transferee owner, met with an accident. The narration of the method and the manner in which the deceased died are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal. The deceased was an employee under the transferee owner. The vehicle, which was being driven by the deceased, was originally owned by one sri D. Raghuveera Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the transferor owner"), who was not made a party to the claim application before the tribunal. The insurance policy was issued on 22-1-2003 in the name of the said d. Raghuveera Rao. But, even before the policy was actually issued, the said d. Raghuveera Rao had transferred the vehicle in the name of the transferee owner on 17-1-2003 itself. The fact remains that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy. The applicants filed the claim application under the W. C. Act against the transferee owner and the Insurance Company only. The tribunal having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, determined the compensation. Challenging the said award, the present Civil miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

( 7 ) SRI T. Mahender Rao, the learned standing Counsel for the Insurance company assails the impugned award mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the transferor owner i. e. , the original owner of the vehicle, in whose name the insurance policy was issued was not made a party to the claim application. Hence, fastening the liability against the transferor owner and consequently fastening the liability on the insurance company is illegal.

( 8 ) IN this connection, it is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company that so along as the policy was in the name of the original owner and since the said original owner i. e. , the transferor owner, is not made a party to the claim application, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, since the liability has to be first fastened against the original owner, who obtained the policy for the vehicle.

( 9 ) SECONDLY, that since the deceased was in an intoxicated condition at the time of his death, in the accident, no compensation can be paid as postulated under Sec. 3 (1) (b) (i) of the W. C. Act.

( 10 ) REPELLING the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that merely because the transferor owner was not made a party, the insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability by virtue of operation of law as envisaged under Section 157 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the m. V. Act" ). He further contended that so far as the intoxicated condition of the deceased at the time of the accident is concerned, the same was not actually pleaded before the tribunal. Therefore, it is not permissible for the Insurance Company to take that ground at