JUDGMENT :- Mody, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 2065, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070 and 2071 of 2007 and also Civil Revision Nos. 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 and 255 of 2007 as in all the appeals/revisions the impugned award is dated 23.3.2007 passed by II A.M.A.C.T., Jhabua. 2. In all the cases appellant, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and claimants are the parties. In all the cases the claimants are different and other parties are one and the same. Since in all the cases the point involved is one and the same, therefore all the appeals and revisions are being decided by one order. In all the revision petitions the delay is of 32 days for which separate applications for condonation of delay are filed in each of the petition. All the appeals are in time. Since the question involved is identical and the appeals filed by the appellant is in time and sufficient ground is made out in the application for condoning the delay, hence the application is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. Heard on merits. Short facts of the case are that claimant who is respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before learned Tribunal alleging that Dharu, respondent No. 2, was driver on the tractor bearing registration No. MP 11-A 8191 attached with trolley bearing registration No. MP 11-A 8192. It was alleged that said tractor attached with the trolley was being owned by Ashok, respondent No. 3 and was in possession of the appellant on 28.3.2003. It was alleged that persons sitting on the offending tractor were going to attend the wedding in the family of respondent No. 4. Further case of claimant-respondent No. 1 was that offending tractor was being driven by the respondent No. 2 at the relevant time rashly and negligently, with the result the said tractor turned turtle, consequently two persons of the marriage party died and other persons who are the claimants sustained injuries. It was alleged that matter was reported and the case was registered at P.S. Meghnagar at Crime No. 38 of 2003. It was alleged that since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 3 and was in possession of the appellant, therefore the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. It was alleged that matter was reported and the case was registered at P.S. Meghnagar at Crime No. 38 of 2003. It was alleged that since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 3 and was in possession of the appellant, therefore the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. It was alleged that since the claimants were going to attend the wedding of the son of the respondent No.4, therefore respondent No. 4 is also liable for compensation. The claim petition was contested by the driver, respondent No. 2, owner, respondent No. 3 and appellant by filing the separate written statements. Respondent No. 4 for whose son's marriage, the marriage party was going on the said tractor has also filed the written statement. In the written statement filed by Ashok, respondent No. 3, the liability was denied alleging that offending tractor attached with the trolley was sold by respondent No. 3 to the appellant vide agreement dated 2.6.1997 for consideration of Rs. 2,75,000. It was alleged that agreement was executed between the parties on 9.6.1997. It was further alleged that on 2.6.97 itself, a sum of Rs. 67,001 was paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 3 and on 22.6.1997 again a sum of Rs. 60,000 was paid by appellant to respondent No. 3 and balance amount of Rs. 1,60,000 was the liability of the bank by whom the offending tractor was financed. It was alleged that this amount was payable in instalments of Rs. 5,000 per month by the respondent No. 3. It was alleged that liability was taken by appellant to secure the bank dues. It was also alleged that Form Nos. 29 and 30 were given by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant on 2.7.1997 for getting the offending vehicle transferred in the name of appellant in the office of RTO. It was also alleged that the appellant paid the amount due to the bank up to 13.8.1999 in instalments. It was further alleged that after the accident, an application was filed by the appellant in the court of JMFC, Thandla for giving the offending vehicle in supurdgi. This application was duly supported by an affidavit wherein it was alleged that offending vehicle is owned by appellant. It was further alleged that after the accident, an application was filed by the appellant in the court of JMFC, Thandla for giving the offending vehicle in supurdgi. This application was duly supported by an affidavit wherein it was alleged that offending vehicle is owned by appellant. It was alleged that learned JMFC, Thandla passed an order whereby the custody of the offending vehicle was given to the appellant upon furnishing the surety of Rs. 1,00,000 and bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000, thereafter custody was given to the appellant. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. 4. Appellant also filed a separate written statement wherein it was alleged that one day before the incident, respondent No. 4 came to the house of the appellant and requested for the offending tractor for carrying the marriage party for which the appellant refused. It was alleged that in the night when the offending tractor was parked outside the house and appellant was sleeping, the offending tractor was taken by the respondent No. 4. It was alleged that in the morning, appellant came to know that accident has taken place. In the written statement it was further alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant was not liable for payment of compensation but since the appellant was being harassed by the injured persons and L.Rs. of the deceased who passed away in the accident, therefore, appellant entered into a compromise and it was decided that no claimant shall file the claim petition in the court and appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation in death cases and Rs. 25,000 in the cases in which passengers sustained grievous injuries. It was also alleged that in other cases where the injured persons sustained abrasions, also small amount of compensation was paid. It was alleged that agreement was executed between the parties. It was also alleged that since the compensation has been paid and the appellant was not the registered owner, therefore appellant is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants holding Dharu, respondent No.2 and the appellant liable for payment of compensation, against which these appeals have been filed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants holding Dharu, respondent No.2 and the appellant liable for payment of compensation, against which these appeals have been filed. In all the appeals and revisions, the amount awarded is as under: S. M.A./C.R. No. Title Claim Award No. Case No. 1. M.A. No. 2064 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Ratna 156 of 2006 Rs. 1,18,000 2. M.A. No. 2065 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Lalu 159 of 2006 Rs. 26,500 3. M.A. No. 2067 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jeetha 166 of 2006 Rs. 1,18,000 4. M.A. No. 2068 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Raraila 169 of 2006 Rs. 14,000 5. M.A. No. 2069 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Bhavchand 175 of 2006 Rs. 98,000 6. M.A. No. 2070 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Vanki 164 of 2006 Rs. 11,000 7. M.A. No. 2071 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Mahesh 172 of 2006 Rs. 11,000 8. C.R. No. 241 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Senabai 174 of 2006 Rs. 900 9. C.R. No. 242 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Sappabai 163 of 2006 Rs. 700 10. C.R. No. 243 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Soklibai 177 of 2006 Rs. 1,600 11. C.R. No. 244 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Suresh 167 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 12. C.R. No. 245 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jogra 171 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 13. C.R. No. 246 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Hakribai 158 of 2006 Rs. 700 14. C.R. No. 247 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jelabai 168 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 15. C.R. No. 248 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Thavribai 173 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 16. C.R. No. 249 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Tersingh 165 of 2006 Rs. 2,000 17. C.R. No. 250 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jheetha 161 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 18. C.R. No. 251 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Pangla 170 of 2006 Rs. 1,500 19. C.R. No. 252 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Ranjeet 160 of 2006 Rs. 2,000 20. C.R. No. 253 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jetubai 162 of 2006 Rs. 800 21. C.R. No. 254 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Mukesh 157 of 2006 Rs. 1,700 22. C.R. No. 255 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Naharia 1786 of 2006 Rs. 1,500. 5. Mr. 2,000 20. C.R. No. 253 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Jetubai 162 of 2006 Rs. 800 21. C.R. No. 254 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Mukesh 157 of 2006 Rs. 1,700 22. C.R. No. 255 of 2007 Madhav Singh v. Naharia 1786 of 2006 Rs. 1,500. 5. Mr. R.R. Chandrawade, the learned counsel for appellant submits that amount of award passed by the learned court below is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the words 'registered owner' is defined under sub-section (30) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under: " 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." 6. It is submitted that since undisputedly the respondent No. 3 was the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore it is the respondent No. 3 who was liable for payment of compensation and learned Tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. The learned counsel further submits that as per the definition of the owner also, a person in whose name the vehicle has been registered is the owner. It is submitted that so far as other part of the sub-section is concerned, since appellant was not in possession of the offending tractor under a hire-purchase agreement or agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation, therefore, it is person in whose name the vehicle has been registered, is a registered owner. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Aaditya Khare v. Jamuna Prasad Kahar, 2007 ACJ 2085 (MP), wherein this court has observed that a person in whose name a vehicle stands registered continues to be owner of the vehicle till the name of the transferee is substituted in the record of the RTO. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of Harcharan Singh v. Turza Bai, 1995 ACJ 423 (MP), wherein this court held that registered owner and insurance company are liable for third party claim. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of Harcharan Singh v. Turza Bai, 1995 ACJ 423 (MP), wherein this court held that registered owner and insurance company are liable for third party claim. Learned counsel further placed reliance on unreported decision of this court in the case of Rajesh v. Mahesh, M.A. No. 1020 of 2007; decided on 11.11.2008, wherein the vehicle was sold under an agreement, it was held that liability of registered owner cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the fact that the appellant was not registered owner of the offending vehicle, learned Tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside. 8. The learned counsel further submits that undisputedly appellant purchased the offending tractor from respondent No. 3 and also paid part of the sale amount and also took the possession of the vehicle but at the same time the offending vehicle was taken from the place where it was parked without permission of the appellant, therefore appellant cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 9. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that undisputedly the offending tractor was purchased by the appellant with the assistance of the bank. It is submitted that offending tractor was sold by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant vide agreement dated 2.6.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,57,000 was payable to the bank and as per the agreement, a sum of Rs. 65,000 was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 3 in cash on 2.6.1997 itself and balance amount of Rs. 60,000 in cash was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 3 on 22.6.1997 and custody of the offending vehicle was given to the appellant at that time only. It is submitted that outstanding of the loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was also cleared by the appellant by making the payment in instalment and last instalment was paid by the appellant on 13.8.1999. It is submitted that the documents in this regard are Exhs. D5 and D7. It is submitted that after the accident, the offending vehicle was seized by the Police Station, Meghnagar. 1,50,000 was also cleared by the appellant by making the payment in instalment and last instalment was paid by the appellant on 13.8.1999. It is submitted that the documents in this regard are Exhs. D5 and D7. It is submitted that after the accident, the offending vehicle was seized by the Police Station, Meghnagar. The appellant moved an application before the JMFC, Thandla which is Exh. D1 wherein it was alleged that appellant is owner of the offending vehicle and is in occupation of the offending vehicle, therefore, the same be given in supurdgi. This application was duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant. This application filed by the appellant was allowed and the order, Exh. D4, was passed whereby the appellant was directed to furnish surety for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000. It is submitted that upon submission of surety, the offending vehicle was given in the custody of the appellant. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was not insured, therefore appellant settled the dispute with all the claimants of which the document is Exh. D8 whereby compensation was given by the appellant. It is submitted that Form Nos. 29 and 30 along with R.C. book and the policy of insurance was handed over to the appellant at the time when the offending vehicle was sold to the appellant which is evident from the Exh. D7-A, thereafter nothing was required to be done by the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the appellant himself entered into the witness- box and has admitted that the offending vehicle was purchased by him and has also admitted that claim has been settled by him. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned award against the appellant as appellant was owner and in occupation of the offending tractor. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126 (MP), wherein Division Bench of this court has held that registration of the vehicle in the name of transferee is essential to complete the transfer and it was also observed that contractual liability of the insurer ceased to be operative on the transfer of the vehicle. It was also held that sale of vehicle is a transaction which is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of Brijlal Khilwani v. Sohan, 2007 ACJ 1666 (MP), wherein the registered owner transferred the vehicle before the accident on agreement to sell by receiving part payment and balance amount was payable in monthly instalments and as per agreement, possession of the vehicle was handed over to the purchaser and liability was put on him after the date of agreement, it was held by this court that transferee owner who was in possession and control of the vehicle at the time of accident and the driver were liable for payment of compensation. 10. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajas than State Road Trans. Corpn. v.Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC), wherein while dealing with the expression owner, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that word 'owner' includes the person who actually possessed and has control of the vehicle and under whose direction and command the driver is obliged to operate the bus. It was further observed that to confine the meaning of owner to the registered owner only would, in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer, not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident. The liability of the owner is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident. 11. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC), wherein the car was requisitioned by the State for election duty when it met with accident resulting in death of a boy and vehicle was insured for private purpose. Tribunal held that under the terms of the policy, insurance company was not liable and in appeal, High Court held that owner, State Government and insurance company are jointly and severally liable and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation awarded. Tribunal held that under the terms of the policy, insurance company was not liable and in appeal, High Court held that owner, State Government and insurance company are jointly and severally liable and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation awarded. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registered owner loses entire control over the vehicle as the vehicle was requisitioned by the State, therefore, it is State alone who is liable for payment of compensation. 12. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned award which can be corrected by this court in appeal or revision. 13. Mr. Yashpal Rathore, counsel for the claimants submits that award has been passed in favour of the claimants and against the appellant and claimants are not challenging the award either for enhancement or for the liability of the appellant in whose occupation the vehicle was at the relevant time. 14. From perusal of award it is evident that to prove the case claimant has filed the document, Exhs. P1 to P104 while the respondent No. 3 has filed the document Exhs. D1 to D8. Exh. D1 is the application filed by appellant for giving the offending vehicle in supurdgi. Exh. D2 is the affidavit filed in support of Exh. Dl. Exh. D3 is the bank guarantee which was furnished by Jhabua Dhar Regional Rural Bank, upon the instructions of the appellant for seeking supurdgi of offending vehicle. Exh. D4 is supurdgi executed by the appellant for the purpose of obtaining the custody of the offending vehicle. Exh. D5 is the document whereby respondent No. 3 agreed to sell the offending vehicle for consideration of Rs. 2,75,000. Exh. D5-A is the document which was executed by respondent No. 3 wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle has been sold by respondent No. 3 to the appellant. Exh. D6 is the statement of the bank which goes to show that loan amount was repaid in instalments. Exh. D7 is the agreement whereby respondent No.3 agreed to sell the offending tractor which was also signed by the appellant wherein appellant took the responsibility of payment of Rs. 1,50,000 in instalment. There is recital in Exh. D7 that R.C. book and insurance policy has been handed over by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant. Exh. D7 is the agreement whereby respondent No.3 agreed to sell the offending tractor which was also signed by the appellant wherein appellant took the responsibility of payment of Rs. 1,50,000 in instalment. There is recital in Exh. D7 that R.C. book and insurance policy has been handed over by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant. On the rear part of the agreement, Exh. D7-A, it is also admitted by the appellant that Form Nos. 29 and 30 were also given to the appellant to facilitate him to get the offending vehicle transferred in the RTO. Exh. D7-A is the affidavit which was filed by the respondent No. 3 in support of the application filed by the appellant for taking the offending vehicle in supurdgi. Exh.D8 is the deed of compromise which contains the thumb impression of number of claimants with whom the claims were settled by the appellant. All the claimants entered into the witness-box who are PW1 to PW 19 while respondent No. 3 has examined himself as DW 1. Jayantilal was examined by the respondent No. 3 as DW 2 who was witness of the agreement which was executed between respondent No. 3 and the appellant. The appellant has also examined himself as DW 3. 15. In the matter of Hamid Khan v. Guddibai, 2003 ACJ 521 (MP), wherein the jeep was transferred by the registered owner but the transfer has not been effected in the name of the transferee owner, Division Bench of this court has held that registered owner is liable along with the transferee owner and driver. In the matter of Aran Kumar Thapar v. Yashwant Indapurkar, 2004 ACJ 1946 (MP), wherein bank took jeep on hire from its owner for official use, which met with an accident when the jeep was in actual possession and control of bank and the driver was obliged to operate the vehicle under the directions and command of officers of the bank, it was held that the bank is also vicariously liable along with the owner of the vehicle. In the matter of Bhagwan Das Tiwari v.Rami Bai, 2001 ACJ 289 (MP), wherein the owner of the vehicle who on the basis of hire-purchase agreement was in possession of the same and plying it through his driver, Division Bench of this court held that since he had the power to control the movement of the vehicle and utilize the income, therefore, is liable for payment of compensation. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Murti, 2002 ACJ 1224 (MP), this court has held that sale of motor vehicle is governed by section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act and the sale is complete when consideration is paid and delivery is obtained. 16. In the present case, the accident took place on 28.3.2003 while undisputedly the offending vehicle which was purchased by the respondent No. 3 was sold to the appellant on 2.6.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000, out of which part of the consideration was received by respondent No. 3 on that very day and balance amount which was payable to the respondent No.3 was received by the respondent No. 3 on 22.6.1997. Appellant also took the responsibility for payment of the bank dues from whom the offending vehicle was financed and paid the amount in instalments. Appellant has also admitted the fact that the documents, Exh. D5 and Exh. D7, were executed between the parties whereby the offending vehicle along with Form Nos.29 and 30 was given to the appellant to facilitate to get the vehicle transferred in his name. After the accident also the application was filed by the appellant, wherein it was alleged that appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle and the custody be given. After the accident the bank guarantee and bonds were also furnished by the appellant and the possession of the vehicle was also given to the appellant. Apart from this, after the accident appellant also entered into a compromise with all the individual claimants for settling the claim. 17. After the accident the bank guarantee and bonds were also furnished by the appellant and the possession of the vehicle was also given to the appellant. Apart from this, after the accident appellant also entered into a compromise with all the individual claimants for settling the claim. 17. Keeping in view the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Kailash Nath Kothari, 1997 ACJ 1148 (SC) and Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC), since the respondent No. 3 was having no control over the vehicle and actual control oh the offending vehicle was of the appellant, therefore no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the award against the appellant. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. 18. A copy of the order be placed in the record of M.A. Nos. 2065, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070 and 2071 of 2007 and also in Civil Revision Nos. 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 and 255 of 2007.