THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.794 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 12.01.2004, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No.55 of 2003 filed by respondents 1 to 3-claimants, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased K. Vijay @ Chiranjeevi during the course of employment. They pleaded that the deceased was employed with the fourth respondent, and that on 10.12.2002 at about 1.00 AM when he was repairing the auto, one scooter bearing No.AP 24 F 1367 came in high speed and dashed him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 25.12.2002. The case was contested by the appellant and the fourth respondent. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,86,615/- to the claimants payable by the appellant and the fourth respondent, within 30 days from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the liability fastened on the appellant-insurer, the present appeal is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, who filed caveat. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to see that the accident occurred in the course of employment with the subsequent purchaser i.e., fourth respondent, who has not insured the crime vehicle with the appellant. He further contended and that the deceased is not the employee of the insured and therefore, the appellant is not liable pay compensation to the claimants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the ownership of the vehicle is transferred to another person, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and in support of the same, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in SANA VIJAYA v. KANNABOINA SHANKAR[1] wherein it was held as under: “The present legal position is that the insurance policy runs with the vehicle irrespective of the transfer of the vehicle from one person to other. Though the policy was issued in the name of the transferor, the fact remains that it covers the risk of the vehicle”. In the instant case, the crime vehicle i.e., auto was initially insured in favour of one R. Yugandhar and later, the said vehicle was purchased by the fourth respondent and that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: “Transfer of certificate of insurance:-(1 ) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer”. From a perusal of the case on hand, it is clear that the policy was issued in the name of the fourth respondent and it is in force as on the date of accident. 5. In view of the above provision of law and in view of the fact that though the policy was issued in the name of the transferor, it covers the risk of the vehicle, as held by this Court in SANA VIJAYA’s case cited (1) supra, I am of the opinion that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 sj [1] 2007(1) ALD 819