(S.B. Sinha, J.) - Leave granted.

2.One Atma Ram Sharma was the owner of a truck bearing Registration No. HIN-4737. It was hypothecated to a Bank. Atma Ram Sharma died sometime in 1991. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. Renewal of the contract of insurance, however, used to be done by the Bank. Despite the death of the said Atma Ram Sharma, no step was taken either by he Bank or by his heirs and legal representatives to get the registration of the vehicle transferred in their names. The insurance policy also continued to be renewed in the name of Atma Ram Sharma.

3.The said vehicle met with an accident while being driven by Shri Chattar Singh on 15.9.1994 in which he died. The legal heirs and representatives of the said Chattar Singh filed an application for grant of compensation under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the widow of the deceased Atma Ram Sharma as also the appellant Insurance Company claiming a sum of Rs. 1,22,400.

4.The appellant, having been given notice by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, in is reply, raised the following purported primary objections :-

“1. That Para 1 of the petition as stated is wrong, hence denied. In fact Shri Atma Ram Sharma died in the year 1991 and on the date of alleged accident no legal insurance policy was in force. It is pertinent to say that alleged offending vehicle No. HIN-4737 was fraudulently got insured vide Policy No. 111302/31/16/21/0065/94 on 12.5.1994 by concealing the true facts. Even according to law the contract cannot be made in favour of a dead person. So under the Contract Act, 1872 the alleged contract of insurance is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. Respondent 1 was not insured, so as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Company is not bound to indemnify the claim.”

5.The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation having regard to the pleadings of the parties, framed several issues, Issue 5 whereof reads as under :-

“5. Whether the contract of insurance of the truck in question between Atma Ram and Co. Is void and not enforceable as alleged. .... OPPII”

6.From the order of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, it does not appear that any witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, determined Issue 5 in favour of the respondent, stating :

“Whether the contract of insurance of the truck in question between Atma Ram and Co. is void ? RW1, Rati Ram has deposed in his statement that Shri Atma Ram was the owner of the truck and after his death his wife is owner of the said truck. He is general power of attorney of Gumani Devi. He further deposed that the truck was insured with United India Insurance company and copy of insurance cover is Ext.RW1/8. The driver of ill-fated truck was Chatter Singh who died in truck accident near Ronhat in the year 1994 who was given Rs. 2000 per day (sic). In cross-examination he admitted that Atma Ram died in 1991 and the truck was insured with SBI, Kafetta. He denied that Chatter Singh was gratuitous passenger in the ill-fated truck. Since the truck was insured with respondent No. 2, therefore, it is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”

7.A sum of Rs. 1,42,465 was directed to be paid by way of compensation. An appeal preferred there against by the appellant herein under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act has been dismissed by the High Court relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 735, stating :-

“It is thus clear that whether intimation is given or not given to the Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of a vehicle, the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company at the