Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—This is an appeal by the insurer of Ambassador Car, bearing registration No. URW-2740 against the order of the Tribunal dated 21.8.1990 passed in M.A.C.P. N0. 76 of 1987 by which a sum of Rs. 67,600/- has been awarded towards compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.6.1987 at about 10-00 p.m., the deceased Uma Shankar with his friend Sri Ajay Kumar was going on the left hand side of the road at Bilaspur near Naini Service Petrol Pump, when an Ambassador Car, bearing registration No. URW-2740, came from the side of Rampur and dashed against Uma Shankar knocking him down on the side of the road causing fatal injuries to him. The driver of the vehicle intended to run away. However, at the distance of about 100 meters near the culvert, the car was stopped by the police patrolling party. Uma Shankar was taken to the hospital where he died. Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma went to the police station and lodged a FIR about the incident. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that the vehicle was in a high speed and being driven rashly and negligently causing accident in which Uma Shankar sustained grievous injuries and died.

3. The sole submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was owned by Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma and was transferred to Smt. Rajo Devi, wife of Sri Mahesh Chandra Grupta, on 22.5.1987. The policy was taken by Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma expired on 4.6.1987, thereafter a fresh policy was taken on 5.6.1987 but the same was in the name of Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma. The submission is that the contract to indemnify was with Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has concluded that on 22.5.1987, the vehicle has been transferred in favour of Smt. Rajo Devi on the basis of record of R.T.O. and on the date of accident she was the owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the insurance policy, the Tribunal also concluded that the insurance of the said vehicle was in force from 5.6.1987 to 4.6.1988 and the policy was issued in the name of Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma. On the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle relying upon the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of New Great Insurance Company of India Limited v. Koshalesh Sharma and others, 1989 ACJ 989; National Insurance Company v. Kastoori Devi and others, 1988 ACJ 8; Santosh Rani and others v. Sheela Devi and others, 1988 ACJ 299; New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Avinash and others, 1988 ACJ 222 and the Full Bench Decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Madineni Kordiaish v. Yasen Fateema, 1986 ACJ 1. The Tribunal has also referred the contrary view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Parvati Ammal and others, 1988 ACC 494 and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Baldev Raj v. Dharmo Rani and others, 1990 ACC 255. In all the decisions where the reliance has been placed by the Insurance Company is based on the plea that the intimation of the transfer had not been given under Section 96 (2) and under Section 103 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, however, relied upon the various decisions referred herein above, has held that the Insurance Company cannot absolve from its liability inasmuch as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident.

4. I have considered rival submissions, perused the record and the impugned order.

5. The admitted facts are that the Ambassador Car, bearing registration No. URW-2740, which was involved in the accident, held on 17.6.1987, initially owned by Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma, was transferred to Smt. Rajo Devi, wife of Sri Mahesh Chandra Grupta on 25.5.1987 as per the record of the R.T.O. Initial insurance policy in the name of Sri Rohit Kuma