The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the transfer of the insurance policy, and in the absence of valid evidence, the insurer cannot be held liable for compensation.

Viswanatha Iyer, J.

Three persons were knocked down by a jeep KLC 4448 at about 9.30 P.M. on 14-10-1979. Of these three, two persons Raghavan and Devanarayanan died and their legal representatives filed claims for award of compensation for the loss caused by their death, under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The first respondent was stated to be the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and the fourth respondent, the previous owner. The second respondent was the driver, and the third respondent the insurer, speaking with reference to the array of parties before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Though the first respondent was impleaded as the owner of the vehicle, there was no insurance for the vehicle in his name; it stood in the name of the fourth respondent. The Tribunal held that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the second respondent driver and an award was accordingly passed for amounts of Rs. 5,600/- and Rs. 7,600/- respectively as compensation after deducting an amount of Rs. 1000/- each paid earlier to the legal representatives of the deceased persons. The insurer was made liable for payment of the amounts. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed these appeals contending that there was no valid policy of insurance covering the vehicle in question and therefore they could not be made liable for payment of the amounts awarded.

2. Memorandum of cross objection has been filed by the claimants in each of these appeals claiming enhanced compensation.

3. Though the plea raised by the insurer in the written statement was that there was no policy of insurance at all issued by them, covering the vehicle, it turned out subsequently that there was a policy of insurance in relation to this vehicle issued in the name of one Kunhahmed, who was the owner of the vehicle, before it was transferred to the fourth respondent at the request of Kunhahmed, and the fourth respondent. The policy thus stood in the name of the fourth respondent. There is no dispute on this point. But after the vehicle was transferred by the fourth respondent to the first respondent, there was no proceeding transferring the insurance cover to the name of the latter; and there lies the dispute between the parties, on which they were in issue before the Tribunal as well. It was the case of the first respondent, the present owner, that himself and the fourth respondent had made application to the third respondent insurer, for transfer of the insurance policy to his name, as prescribed in Ss.103A of the Motor Vehicles Act, '1939, to which they did not receive any reply within a period of fifteen days, or even by the time the first respondent was examined in the case as R.W.I. Therefore, and according to the first respondent, a valid policy should be deemed to exist in relation to the vehicle in his name, which made the insurer liable for payment of the amounts of compensation..

4. The first respondent examined himself as R.W.I in support of this plea. In defence, the insurer examined one of its officers as R. W.4. The Tribunal proceeded as if there was no cross-examination of R.W.I on his deposition that an application for transfer had been made by him and the fourth respondent. It was based primarily on this circumstance that the Tribunal held that there was a deemed transfer of the policy to. the first respondent under S.103A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The order of the Tribunal proceeds as if there/was no other evidence in the case relating to the transfer of the policy except the alleged uncontradicted statement of R.W.1. But a perusal of the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 4 belies this line of reasoning of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has omitted to note material portions in the evidence of R.W.1 besides totally ignoring the evidence of R.W.4. R.W.1 was actually cross-examined at length regarding the application for transfer when he deposed as follows:

"Document transfer endorsement No."

This endorsement