S.K. Dubey, J.

1. Short contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, is that on the date of accident, the insured Bijendrasingh, who is insured in the records of insurance company and the policy was issued in his name, covering risk of the vehicle No. CPH 5167, transferred the vehicle to one Ajit Kumar. As this was a suppression of the material fact, the policy lapsed from the date of transfer. The name of Ajit Kumar is also recorded in the records of Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal, without holding an enquiry, committed an illegality in passing order under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').

2. Mr. R.D. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, contended that this is not the appropriate stage where the defence under Section 96 (2) of the Act can be considered while deciding an application under Section 92-A of the Act. All the defences under Section 96 (2) of the Act will have to be tried and then decided after recording the evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that as the vehicle was insured with the insurance company which fact has also been admitted in the written statement in para 8