P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Claimant is the appellant before this Court. Grievance is mainly against the verdict passed by the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability, holding that the policy taken was not in the name of the owner of the vehicle but in the name of the previous owner and hence that there was no privity of contract to be mulcted with the liability towards the third party/claimant.

2. Sequence of events is as follows:-

The appellant herein was travelling as a passenger in the autorikshaw bearing No. KL5B 2463 and while so, when the autorikshaw reached the place of occurrence, allegedly because of the rash and negligent driving of the autorikshaw, it capsized causing serious injuries to the passenger, which led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. Though the second respondent was shown as the registered owner, it was subsequently brought out that the said respondent had already transferred ownership of the vehicle to another person, who hence was brought in as the additional 4th respondent. But for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company all other respondents before the Tribunal chose to remain ex-parte. As mentioned already, according to the Insurance company, they were not liable to satisfy the claim, for want of proper policy in the name of the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident.

3. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts. A1 to A12 marked on the part of the claimant and Ext. B1 marked on the part of the respondent company. Nobody was examined on either side. Based on the available materials on record, the Tribunal held that the second respondent was the previous owner of the vehicle, who transferred the vehicle to the fourth respondent on 19.06.1996; as revealed from Ext. A12 RC particulars. As such, on the date of accident, i.e. on 03.06.1997, it was 4th respondent who was the owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation. Ext B1 policy for the period from 07.01.1997 to 06.01.1998 stood in the name of the second respondent, though the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the 4th respondent much earlier on 19.06.1996 as disclosed from Ext.A12. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company that the policy was taken in the name of the second respondent by suppressing material fact; that the vehicle had already been transferred to the 4th respondent on 19.06.1996 and hence that it was hit by Section 149 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the effect that the policy was void. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1997 ACJ 1383 (Asok Kumar and another Vs. Mohan Lal Kehar and another), it was held that 3rd respondent insurer was not liable to indemnify the 4th respondent. Thereafter, compensation was awarded under different heads and the total compensation payable was fixed as Rs.1,07,630/-; which was directed to be satisfied with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05.05.1998 till realisation, along with cost of Rs.2,700/- to be satisfied by the driver and the additional 4th respondent/owner. This made the appellant/claimant to feel aggrieved and hence the appeal seeking to fix the liability upon the insurer as well, on the strength of Ext. B1 policy, which was in existence as on the date of the accident, though in the name of the second respondent/previous owner.

4. Heard both the sides.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that the Award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law, which requires no interference as no policy was issued in favour of the owner/additional 4th respondent. On the date of issuance of Ext. B1 policy for the period from 07.01.1997 to 06.01.1998, there was no insurable interest for the second respondent over the concerned autorikshaw and since the second respondent was in no way connected with the vehicle, no liability cou