R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, which is the second respondent in W. C. No. 1 of 1991 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Ranga Reddy District, questioning the orders dated 28-11-1992, by which compensation was awarded to the two claimants, who are Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, and directing the Insurance Company also to pay such compensation.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein filed the petition in W. C. No. 1 of 1991 before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Ranga Reddy District claiming compensation on account of the death of their deceased son in a motor vehicle accident involving the Tractor bearing No. AAG 5273. The Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation has come to the conclusion that the deceased was an employee under the 4th respondent herein, who was the third respondent before him, at the time of accident; that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor by its driver and that, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. He awarded a total compensation of Rs. 90,552. 00 and directed the 4th respondent herein as well as the appellant/ Insurance Company to pay such amount The claimants and the 4th respondent herein have not questioned the award. The Insurance Company has, however, filed this appeal questioning its liability on the ground that the insurance policy was issued by it only in favour of the third respondent herein, who was the owner of the above said Tractor at the time when the insurance policy was issued; that the deceased was not an employee under the third respondent at the time of accident and that, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

( 3 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 4 ) IT is seen from the facts of this case that the above said Tractor originally belonged to the third respondent herein and it was duly insured with the appellant/insurance Company. The accident in this case took place on 5-12-1990. It is also now not disputed that the above said Tractor was sold by the third respondent herein to the 4th respondent and the same was transferred to him along with the insurance policy on 17-6-1990, which is long prior to the date of accident. It is also now admitted and also proved from the evidence placed before the lower authority that the deceased was an employee under the 4th respondent herein by the date of accident. Therefore, the 4th respondent, who became the owner of the vehicle and also obtained transfer of the insurance policy from the third respondent herein, is clearly liable to pay compensation. The only question that is in dispute is whether the appellant/insurance Company is absolved from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the ground that the insurance policy which was issued by it in favour of the third respondent herein was not transferred by it to the 4th respondent after he purchased the Tractor.

( 5 ) AS the accident took place on 5-12-1990, it is governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 entitles the insured to transfer the policy of the insurance along with the transfer of vehicle and on his doing so, the certificate of insurance and the policy stand transferred in favour of the transferee from the date of transfer under the deeming provision enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is now no requirement of applying to the insurer for transfer of the policy and it gets transferred to the transferee by operation of law. Even though Section 157 (2) of the Act gives 14 days time from the date of transfer to the transferee to make an application to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the effect of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour, the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved even if such transfer is not consequent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document