The transferee of a motor vehicle is responsible for notifying the insurance company of the transfer and paying any additional premium required to continue the insurance. Failure to do so may result in the insurance company not being liable to pay compensation in the event of an accident.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31/01/1984 in Claim case No. 38/78;. 39/78 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) has been awarded to the claimant appellants against respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 holding them negligent to the tune of 1/3rd for the accident and respondent No. 3 Insurance company and respondent No. 4 Ramchandra C/o Mahadev Trading Co. have been completely exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case is that the claimant appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Rajendra Prasad aged about 22 years, who met with an accidental death on 25/2/78 at about 7/8 a. m. by truck No. R. J. Z. 6385 driven by respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) RAJENDRA was a student of B. Com. final. He was working as binder in Patidar Engineering Works at Neemuch. On the date of accident, at about 7-8 a. m. he was going to that work shop on a cycle. The truck referred above, owned by respondent No. 1 Hariram and driven by respondent No. 2 Ramlal with the load of goats and sheep came from behind. As it was being driven rashly and negligently, it dashed Rajendra from the back side. He was thrown from the Cycle and thereafter crushed by right rear wheel of the truck. He died immediately. The matter was reported to the police. After doing all the formalities of inquest report, the body was sent for Post Mortem Examination. The cycle and the Motor Truck was seized; spot map was prepared and thereafter challan against driver respondent No. 2 was filed in the court.

( 4 ) THE claimants have asserted that Rajendra was earning Rs. 300/- per month and most of it was being spent on the family. The claimant No. 3 is the widow and claimant No. 4 is the minor son of the deceased. They have been deprived of love and affection of the deceased. The claimanty lakhs as compensation.

( 5 ) EARLIER, truck involved in the accident, was owned by respondent No. 4 and was insured with respondent No. 3 i. e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Respondent No. 4 sold this truck to respondent No. 1 and the registration of the truck was also transferred in the name of respondent No. 1.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 and 2 by way of written statement denied the claim of the applicants and pleaded that the deceased all of a sudden took a turn from a distance of 6 to 7 ft. from the truck. The driver tried to apply the break; but despite that it dashed against the cycle of the deceased. The accident was inevitable and was wholly due to the negligence of the deceased. They have further pleaded ignorance about the status and the income of the deceased.

( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 by separate written statement. have submitted that the truck involved in the accident was earlier in the owner ship of respondent No. 4 and was insured with respondent No. 3, the Insurance company. But the fact of transfer to respondent No. 1 was not communicated to them as there was no contract between respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation or to compensate respondent No. 1

( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 by a separate written statement has asserted that the truck was completely transferred in favour of respondent No. 1/09/1977 itself and respondent No. 1 was the owner from 4-9-77 onwards. Hence, he is not responsible for the loss caused due to the accident, Hence, he is not liable for payment of compensation.

( 9 ) LEARNED tribunal has held that the deceased contributed to the accident to the tune of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of the responsibility has been placed on respondent No. 2. As such, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants. Hence this appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the same.

( 10 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding of contribution of the deceased for the accident to the extent of 2/3 is erroneous that the compensation has been assesse