The main legal point established is that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the insurance policy is governed by Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and non-compliance with Section 157(2) does not affect the transfer of the insurance policy.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October, 2010, in W.C.A. No.19 of 1999 by the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. The Claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by the present appellant claiming compensation for the injuries he suffered while driving a truck bearing registration No.MH-31-W-2717 on 29th June, 1997. The appellant contended that the accident occurred during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and it arose out of that employment. He submitted that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was the owner of the said truck, while respondent No.3 was its previous owner. He also claimed that the truck was insured with respondent No.2 with the insurance policy having been issued in the name of previous owner-respondent No.3. The petition proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, but the respondent No.2Insurance Company Ltd. resisted the application contending that the accident took place due to negligent act of the appellant himself and that the insurance policy of the offending truck was not issued in the name of respondent No.1.

2. The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence available on record and hearing rival parties, recorded a finding that the appellant was the workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and as he sustained injuries during the course of employment he was entitled to receive compensation together with penalty. Learned Commissioner, also found that the insurance policy not being issued in the name of respondent No.1, only respondent No.1 was liable to pay compensation and he absolved respondent Nos.2 and 3 of any liability to pay compensation. Thus, by his judgment and order passed on 28th October, 2010, learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,29,576/- together with interest, penalty of Rs.50,000/-and costs of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant.

3. Not satisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. This appeal was admitted by this Court upon a substantial question of law on 8th April, 2013. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is as follows :

“Whether the present case is covered under Section 157(1) or 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?”

5. I have heard Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, although duly served and put on notice that this matter would be taken up for final hearing on 14th February, 2014 as per the order passed by this Court on 22nd January, 2014.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent No.1 has been found to be the owner of the offending truck on the date of accident by the learned Commissioner and yet the learned Commissioner has not fastened liability for payment of compensation upon the insurer i.e. respondent No.2 when there was no dispute about the existence of the insurance policy on the date of the accident. He submits that the learned Commissioner has ignored the deeming provision of Section 157, subsection (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by which the insurance certificate and policy described in the certificate are deemed to be transferred in favour of transferee to whom the vehicle is transferred by the transferer and such deeming effect is from the date of the transfer of the vehicle. He further submits that the provision of subsection (2) of Section 157 is only a procedural aspect and even if it is not complied with, it would not have any adverse impact on the deemed transfer of insurance policy to the transferee from the date of transfer. He, therefore, submits that this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that as per the registration particulars, on the date o