Replete with far-reaching implications, the Allahabad High Court has just ruled that even if the ownership of the vehicle involved in a motor accident was not transferred at the time of the mishap, an insurance company would still be liable to compensate the victim.The case emanated from a road accident wherein one vehicle involved in a fatal collision had not yet been transferred to the new owner at the date of the accident. In a claim brought under the Motor Vehicles Act the legal representatives of the victim who died filed for compensation claiming damages payable by the insurance company operating with regard to the said vehicle. However, the claim was disputed by the insurance company as it claimed that since the owner of the vehicle had changed but not updated in the registration records, they did not owe any compensation. The Allahabad High Court rejected the argument put forth by the insurance company and held the insurance company liable for compensation. According to the court, on the sale of a vehicle, under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance policy gets automatically transferred to the new owner. The provision ensures that even in the absence of registrable registration of ownership transfer, the insurance cover will remain valid if the policy is in force. In explanation, the court indicated that with an insurance policy in a motor vehicle case, third-party victims should not be disposed of by technical issues such as delayed owners' transfer. The court further clarified that an insurance policy is fashioned to offer protection and compensation on affected parties from road accidents, and it cannot use procedural flaws in the owner transfer to claim exemption. Key Take-Aways To this end, no-fault liability says that innocent third parties, such as the victims of an accident, should not be deprived of their compensation because of a controversy over compensation between the vehicle's owner and the insurance company. Thus, the court underlined that the rights of the victim are superior to mere technicalities and obstructions in the delivery of justice. In addition, the court determined that whatever controversy that would develop over ownership and conveyance of the vehicle between the seller and the buyer does not bring any prejudice regarding the liability of the insurance company under the active policy. Consequences: It further reiterates the rights of victims of accidents to compensation, as well as whether the vehicle at the time of the accident was owned or not by that person and informs the insurance companies of the fact that issues of ownership do not exempt them from their liability under third-party motor vehicle policies.