1. This appeal is by the insurer, questioning the award dated 6.12.2006 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davangere (hereinafter for short 'the Commissioner').

2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were the claimants before the Commissioner, had filed a claim petition, inter alia, alleging that the husband of the respondent No. 3 was working as loader and unloader on a lorry bearing No. KA 17 - B 3650 belonging to the respondent No. 1. While he was travelling in the said lorry on 12.6.2004 at the direction of the respondent No. 1 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, the said lorry met with an accident, as a result of which, respondent No. 3's husband died. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their claim petition alleged that deceased was earning Rs. 250 per day and also Rs. 50 as batta and accordingly, they sought for compensation.

3. The Commissioner on the basis of the material produced before him held that the vehicle is insured and also held that the deceased was an employee under respondent No. 1 and further held that dependants, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,03,340. As against the said award, this appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mahesh Uppin, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

5. Mr. A.K. Bhat submitted that as the respondent No. 2 had transferred the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 1 as such, there was no relationship of master and servant between respondent No. 2 and the deceased. Since the vehicle is transferred by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 without the intimation to the appellant insurer, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, as it is opposed to S.157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' for short). In the alternative, he also submitted that even if the insurer is held liable to pay compensation in regard to the risk of the third party is concerned, it should be only on the basis of pay and recovery.

6. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.N. Ravikumar, 2008 ACJ 1681 (Karnataka) and submitted that Division Bench of this court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Rikhi Ram v. Sukhrania, 2003 ACJ 534 (SC), has ordered for pay and recovery and as such, the award passed by the Commissioner without ordering for pay and recover is not sustainable in law. He also submitted that the Commissioner has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 30 days of the date of accident, which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC).

7. Mr. Mahesh R. Uppin, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that there is no provision under the Act for ordering pay and recover. S.157 (1) of the Act provides for deemed transfer. If the vehicle is transferred, the policy also gets transferred, however, it may not cover the risk of the transferee till the transfer is intimated to the insurer and no question of pay and recovery arises in this case. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 781 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court considering the provisions of the Act has held that insofar as third party is concerned, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation even in case the transfer had not been intimated to the insurer.

8. Mr. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supporting the argument of Mr. Mahesh Uppin, further submitted that as far as the third party is concerned, the insurer is statutorily liable under the provisions of S.147 (5) of the Act. A transfer does not in any way disentitle the claim of the third party as this risk is statutorily covered and even in case if there is an