( 1 ) WE propose to decide both the aforesaid appeals [misc. Appeal No. 192 of 1996, Umed Chand golcha (dead) through legal heirs v. Dayaram and Misc. Appeal No. 88 of 1998, sunita v. Pushpa Sharma], since common questions for consideration and decision arise in both of them.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to consider the same, it would be desirable to make mention of material facts of the cases one after the other.

( 3 ) MISC. Appeal No. 192 of 1996 is directed against the award dated 21. 11. 95 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Durg, in Claim Case No. 75 of 1986. The claimant Umed Chand Golcha (dead) was going from Rajnandgaon to durg on motor cycle of his friend Shikhar chand Jain on 1. 3. 1984. The truck bearing registration No. CPR 8964 belonging to satya Narayan Sharma, driven by Dayaram and insured with Oriental Fire and genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. dashed against the said motor cycle. As a result of this accident, the claimant fell down and his right leg was seriously injured, apart from injuries on other parts of the body. He availed treatment at various places, like Durg, Pune, madras, Visakhapatnam and Bombay. His claim is that he became permanently disabled in the accident by 40 per cent, therefore, he was entitled to compensation of rs. 5,74,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

( 4 ) THE owner of the vehicle has denied the allegations raised by the claimant and stated, inter alia, that the vehicle was insured. The insurance company stated that the claim was excessive. The contract of insurance was not with Satya Narayan Sharma. Instead, it was with Devendra Singh, the original owner of the vehicle, and the insurance company had not been intimated about the transfer of the vehicle, therefore, the policy issued in favour of Devendra singh stood lapsed and the contract of insurance ceased to exist. It was not liable to indemnify the transferee of the vehicle. The Tribunal, on consideration of material on record, accepted the allegation of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It also found that the vehicle had been transferred by Devendra singh in favour of Satya Narayan Sharma, but no intimation was given to the insurance company; therefore, it was not responsible to satisfy the award. Consequently, it was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.

( 5 ) THE award was challenged by the claimant on various grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. It may be pertinent to record that the Full Bench in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram, 2000 ACJ 405 (MP), on reference made by the Division bench of this court by order dated 23. 9. 1997 passed in Umed Chand Golcha v. Dayaram, M. A. No. 192 of 1996, held that the insurance policy remains effective in respect of third party risks but not in respect of transferee risks, even if there has been absence of application/intimation as stipulated under section 103-A of the act and law laid down in Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126 (MP) and sabirhussain v. Maya Bai, 1997 ACJ 1258 (MP) and similar other decisions, was no more good law. Therefore, the claim of the insurance company that it was not liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the reasons that on transfer of vehicle without intimation to it, policy ceased to exist and there was no privity of contract between the company and the transferee, stands rejected.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the claimant Umed Chand Golcha died because of personal injuries sustained by him and in his place, his legal representatives have been substituted by the court by order dated 22. 11. 1999.

( 7 ) MISC. Appeal No. 88 of 1998 (Sunita v. Pushpa Sharma), is directed against the award dated 21. 10. 97 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur, in claim Case No. 27 of 1992, whereby the claim has been dismissed as abated.

( 8 ) SALIGRAM Deshmukh instituted a claim before the Claims Tribunal f