S.G. SHAH, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant-Insurance Company and learned Advocate Mr. Manish S. Shah for the respondent No. 1-original claimant. Perused the record.

2. The appellant herein is opponent No. 2 before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Himmatnagar in non-Fatal Workmen Compensation Case No. 76 of 2005. Such claim was preferred by the respondent No. 3 herein being legal heirs of victim of accident claiming Rs. 4,50,440/- as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

3. It is an undisputed fact that claimant - victim was serving as a driver of Motor Vehicle No. MH-8-A-7539. It was also an undisputed fact that on 12-8-2013 when victim was driving the truck towards Ahmedabad axle of both the front wheel of the truck where all of a sudden detached from places of the truck, and thereby, truck was turn turtle which resulted into serious and grievous injuries to the victim for which he died. Therefore, claimant has preferred for claim of compensation contended that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- salary and he was 19 years of age. Since, victim was serving with the opponent No. 1-respondent No. 2 herein and since such owner of the vehicle has got his vehicle insured with the present appellant-Insurance Company, the claim is preferred both against the owner and Insurance Company.

4. After allowing both the sides to prove their case, the Commissioner has assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,440/-, considering the relevant factors as per statute. The Commissioner has also awarded 12% interest and Rs. 2,500/- as penalty to be paid by employer-owner of the vehicle.

5. Therefore, Commissioner was gracious enough to exonerate the liability of the Insurance Company from the payment of penalty and did not award interest on the amount of medical expenses.

6. However, appellant-Insurance Company has aggrieved by such award on altogether different issue that in fact owner of the vehicle in whose favour insurance policy was issued by the appellant, copy of which is produced on record at Exh. 32 has sold the vehicle and on the date of accident vehicle was not owned by him, and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the person who was not actual owner of the vehicle in question. The fact remains that insurance policy is in name of opponent No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 2 herein who is registered owner of vehicle in question. However, irrespective of factual details on record, considering the statutory provisions which is discussed hereinabove confirming that policy of insurance would get transfer with the transfer of vehicle, there is no substance in plea by the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, appellant-Insurance Company has contended that since registered owner has already sold the vehicle, and since their policy is in the name of registered owner being respondent No. 2 herein, and thereby, when on the date of accident respondent No. 2 is not the real owner of the vehicle, it may not be held liable to indemnify such person.

7. Thereby, when appeal is mainly on such legal issue and when otherwise there is no dispute regarding nature of incident and its result, all those minute details are irrelevant at this stage, except to consider rival submission on main issue that whether insurance policy would remain in force, and thereby, whether Insurance Company can be held liable to indemnify the owner or not. The Commissioner has considered the rival submissions and properly appreciated the evidence and assigned proper reason to held that claimant was in service of the opponent No. 1 and relied upon the factual details that it was only agreement to sell the vehicle by opponent No. 1 just before two days of the date of accident, and thereby, since, vehicle was not transferred from the name of opponent No. 1, and since his name was continued in registration certificate of the vehicle, he remains owner for all purposes, and therefore, In