JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant- United India Insurance Company Ltd. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as `Insurance Co.') under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, aggrieved by the judgment and award of learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sirohi, dated 15.07.2010 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,64,951/- on account of death of their son, namely, Lakharam. 2. The son of the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants lost his life on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident while he was in the employment of respondent, Shaitan Singh, which accident took place on 02.11.2002 while the deceased Lakharam was driving the Auto-Ricksaw (RJ-24P-0663) and the said vehicle turned turtle at Main Bazar, Sheoganj. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident. At the time of accident the vehicle in question was insured with the present appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. The learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sirohi, after evaluating the evidence partly allowed the claim and proceeded to award the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,64,951/- including interest while deciding Issue No.2 in favour of claimants. At the time of accident the vehicle in question was insured with the present appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. The learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sirohi, after evaluating the evidence partly allowed the claim and proceeded to award the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,64,951/- including interest while deciding Issue No.2 in favour of claimants. The relevant findings of the learned Commissioner is quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^rudh la[;k nks& vk;k fd fnukad 2@11@02 dks yk[kk dh vkWVks fjD'kk pykrs gq;s dk;Z ds nkSjku e`R;q gqbZA bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk ftEek izkFkhZ ij FkkA izkFkhZ i{k us Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa dFku fd;k fd e`rd yk[kkjke mudk iq= Fkk rFkk fnukad 2@11@02 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dh ekydh vkWVks fjD'kk la[;k vkj ts 24 th 0663 ij pkyd Fkk ,oa okgu dk vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds fgrkFkZ dk;Z djrs gq;s pyk jgk Fkk fd iyVh [kk x;k ,oa mlds xaHkhj pksVsa vkbZ ,oa e`R;q gks x;hA bl rF;ksa dks izkFkhZ;k us c;kuksa ds 'kiFk i= ,oa ftjg esa Hkh iqf"V dh gSA vkWVks fjD'kk dks pykrs le; ?kfVr nq?kZVuk ,oa vk;h pksVksa ls e`R;q dh iqf"V izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ 2 vafre ifj.kke izn'kZ 1 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ls gksrh gSA izn'kZ 1 vafre ifj.kke ¼,Q vkj½ esa vafdr gS fd e`rd yk[kkjke iq= vksckjke tkfr jsckjh fuokl [kstfM+;k }kjk fnukad 2@11@02 dh lqcg 8-30 , ,e ij fjD'kk rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ls vkWVks fjD'kk esfMdy ds ikl vk x;k ftlls vkWVks fjD'kk pkyd dh e`R;q gqbZ gSA bu rF;ksa dks ugha ekuus dk i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; vFkok nLrkost ugha gS vr% e`rd dh e`R;q fnukad 2@11@02 dks vkWVks fjD'kk pykrs gq, dk;Z ds nkSjku gqbZ FkhA vr% ;g rudh izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA** 4. Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Co. relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in MACD 2009 (SC) 182 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Badami Devi & Ors. Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Co. relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in MACD 2009 (SC) 182 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Badami Devi & Ors. reported in MACD 2012 (2) (Raj.) 1079 submitted that neither the relationship of employer-employee was established by the claimants and in fact the said vehicle has been sold by the owner/third respondent, Shaitan Singh to the deceased Lakharam himself on 22.07.2002 as would be evident from the document placed on record including the agreement to sell and power of attorney given by said Shaitan Singh in favour of deceased Lakharam, but the learned Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability on the owner and insurer (appellant herein) of the vehicle to satisfy the award. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Khatri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/claimants argued that the said transfer of the vehicle in the name of Lakharam (deceased) never took place before his death in the accident on 02.11.2002 and mere agreement to sell executed by Shaitan Singh in favour of deceased Lakharam on 22.07.2002 does not amount to transfer of vehicle as no registration in the name of deceased Lakharam by the competent authority in the Transport Department took place. The prescribed Forms No.29 and 30 in this regard were never filed before the competent authority. He submitted that the employer-employee relationship was duly established by the statements of the father/first respondent, who appeared before the learned Commissioner and there was only a bald denial on the part of the third respondent (owner, Shaitan Singh), who merely stated in his statement that Lakharam never worked as driver of vehicle in question. 6. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Co. are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath (supra), the deceased working in a truck as a driver, carried some passengers in the vehicle to a temple, and there while taking bath in the pond he had drowned and breathed his last and these circumstances, the death was held to be not arising during the course of employment. 7. 7. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Badami Devi (supra) decided by a coordinate bench of this Court, the Court held that relationship of employer-employee with the respondent No.2 was never established and the causal connection between the injury and the alleged accident during the course of accident was not proved by the claimants and, therefore, the insurer would not be liable. It was also held in para 12 of the said judgment that pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal under Section 30 is not required to be made by the appellant Insurance Company. This judgment is also of little help to the appellant-Insurance Co. in the present case. In the present case, relationship of employer-employee has been duly established by the statement of the father of the deceased and the transfer of the vehicle in question has not been proved by the non-claimants. Merely because the agreement to sell purporting to transfer the vehicle entered into between the parties i.e. respondent No.3, Shaitan Singh, registered owner, and the deceased Lakharam, it does not amount to a valid transfer of the vehicle unless registration thereof is recorded by the competent authority. 8. The claim having been awarded by the learned Commissioner is based on correct appreciation of relevant evidence, and there is no controverting material available before this Court to take a different view of the matter. The present appeal of the appellant-Insurance Co. is thus found to be bereft of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. Appeal dismissed.