Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. No one appeared for the respondents.

2. Present appeal is preferred by the original opponent No. 3 Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 15-03-1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 140 of 1989. The respondents original claimants filed application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondents original claimants are legal representatives/legal heirs parents and brother of the deceased Vilas Onkar Lahudkar. The deceased was working as cleaner on Tempo of Ashokkumar Purohit. He was getting Rs.700/- per month. He used to pay Rs.400/- per month to his family for household expenses. The deceased was the sole person who was managing the entire family. On 26-12-1988 the deceased came from Baramati and was going towards Aurangabad alongwith tempo. After crossing Pandharipul, one bulb of head lamp of tempo became short. Therefore, the driver of the tempo asked the deceased to replace the same. For replacement of the said lamp, driver stopped the tempo at the left side of the road. After replacing the bulb, the deceased was coming in front of the tempo. At that time, truck gave dash to the said tempo from the back side, due to which, the tempo was pushed ahead for a distance of 60 to 65 ft., and the truck turned turtle. In the said accident, Vilas Onkar Ladhudkar died. Therefore, the respondents original claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. In that claim petition, the appellant Insurance Company filed their written statement dated 18-11-1989 and resisted the claim petition. The appellant raised objection that "respondent No.7 owner of the truck which was insured under the policy, had transferred the said vehicle to one Mr. Liyakat Hussain Shaikh, who again transferred it to Mrs. Sangita Kishor Bhandari on 14-12-1988 and also parted with possession of the said vehicle to her, without any intimation and without permission of the appellant. Therefore he had no insurable interest in the said vehicle on the alleged date of the incident i.e. on 26-12-1988. As the said vehicle was transferred without any intimation and without the permission of the appellant, the policy of insurance issued by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 7 lapsed and so the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation."

4. I heard Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a statement before the Court that they challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 15-03-1996 only on the ground that respondent No. 7 owner sold the vehicle to third party before the date of accident, without intimating them and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents original claimants. He submits that it has come on record in the pleadings that the vehicle was transferred by respondent No.7 and possession was handed over to the purchaser of the vehicle before the accident occurred. Under such circumstances, the claim petition should have been rejected for not impleading necessary party. He further submits that as per provisions of Section 31 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the transfer of ownership take place on the date of sale, though in registration of vehicle record maintained by the Regional Transport Authority, name of the transferor is recorded later on. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. He further submits that the transfer of ownership takes place from the sale date and not on the date on which the name of transferor is recorded in the office of the R.T.A. Therefore, relying on evidence of witness Prakash at Exhibit-68 the learned Tribunal has given erroneous finding on issue Nos.3 and 4 and same are against law. He furthe