The transfer of vehicle ownership triggers the transfer of insurance liability as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and procedural omissions do not absolve the insurance company from its liability.

This appeal has been filed against the award dated 26.05.2011, made in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.

2. It is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that he sustained injury during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent. He laid a claim petition in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent/employer and the insurance company with which the vehicle of the 2nd respondent insured, filed counter affidavits resisting the claim. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, awarded compensation of Rs.1,62,655/- to be payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent/claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

''1)Whether the insurance company is liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act when there exist only a contractual relationship between the workman and the transferee of the owner of the vehicle?

(2) Whether the insurance company can be mulcted with the liability under Workmen's Compensation Act when the ownership of the vehicle was transferred from the insured to another person without any intimation to the insurance company?

(3) Whether the insurance company can be fastened with liability when the transfer of the ownership of he vehicle from the transferor to the transferee even prior to the accident and when no premium was collected from the transferee after the transfer of ownership of vehicle?''

3. On the above substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation failed to consider that the 1st respondent/claimant was working as driver in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-67-A-2872 belonging to the 2nd respondent who entrusted the vehicle to a contractor one Saravanan who in turn used the vehicle to transport the workers employed in the 3rd respondent Mill. It is further submitted that the above vehicle was originally owned by one Aliyar Kutty and insurance policy also stood in his name for the period between 14.07.2006 and 13.07.2007 and prior to the accident, the said vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, but the said transfer was not intimated to the appellant and that no premium was collected from the 2nd respondent after the alleged transfer of vehicle. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since there was only a contractual relationship between the 1st respondent/claiamant and the 2nd respondent after the transfer of vehicle, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In support of the said contention, he relied on the following decisions:-

(i) National Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal vs. T.Balu and others (CMA(MD)No.848 of 2011, dated 28.03.2012).

(ii) A.Manickam vs. Raju and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1544.

(iii) United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. M.Periyasamy and another reported in 2010 ACJ 300.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and whether the relationship between the 1st respondent/claimant and the transferee of the of the vehicle/2nd respondent was contractual or not.

6. It is the contention of the appellant that the vehicle in question was originally owned by Aliyar Kutty and prior to accident, the vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, but insurance policy was not transferred. As on the date of accident, there was no employer-employee relationship between Aliyar Kutty/insured and the claimant, to compensate the claimant and further, the relationship between the 2nd respondent and claimant was contractual in nature. Therefore, the appellant is n