The appellant Company in this appeal has not challenged the award of compensation, but has challenged its liability as an insurer to indemnify the owner or to pay compensation to satisfy the award on the ground that respondent No. 2, the registered owner transferred the possession of the truck to respondents No. 1 and 4, on receipt of payment of Rs. 21,100/-, who were plying the truck. Therefore, on transfer of the vehicle, the policy of insurance lapsed, hence the appellant could not have been made liable to pay compensation.

Shri P.R. Bhave, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 12 submitted that transfer was not effected as the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the contract was not concluded. Respondent No. 2 continued to be the registered owner as defined under section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, the appellant Company cannot escape its liability to indemnify or to pay compensation to the claimants.

From the evidence on record, it is amply established that the contract of transfer was not concluded as the whole of the consideration was not paid and that there was a clause in the agreement to take back the possession in the event of default of payment of consideration within the stipulated time. For a concluded contract passing of the consideration as agreed is an essential element in a transaction of sale. If no consideration is passed or part of the consideration is paid, the sale is not complete as to transfer the title or interest.

Besides in this case, the transfer is not complete as the registered owner has not intimated the transfer of vehicle or has not taken any steps as provided under section 31 of the Act. In the circumstances, it shall be deemed that there is no transfer of the vehicle in law. Inter parties transactions may exist, but if they are not in accordance with law, they cannot be recognised. Therefore, when an accident takes place the registered owner on that date is liable to pay damages to the victim of the accident. Insurance Company in such circumstances, cannot set up the defence that there was sale of the vehicle during the period of cover and the policy had lapsed. Besides, this defence is not available to the insurer as

against the_third party claim, under section 96 (2) of the Act, so as to deny its liability to the third party. In case, where such a transfer is made of the vehicle, without following the provisions by the party of section 103 of the Act, in such situation it would be open to Insurance Company to proceed against the registered owner for reimbursement of the compensation, which was required to be paid under the cover of the policy to the third party, by independent proceedings against the insured based on the policy conditions of insurance. AIR 1986 MP 21, 1993 MPU 798, 1994 JLJ 197,1986 ACJ 1, AIR 1990 Mad. 14 and AIR 1976 Raj 71 relied on. 1987 ACJ 209 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.