Honble TATIA, J.–Head learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2). This appeal is against the award dated 3rd Oct. 1987 by which the appellant, respondent No.2 & respondent No.3 were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant respondent No.1 as warded by the Tribunal.

(3). This appeal is by the appellant Dhulchand, who was the non- petitioner No.3 before the Tribunal. The other non-petitioners before the Tribunal was Sampt Lal, who also challenged the award by S.B.C. Misc. Appeal No. 213/1987, which was dismissed on 8th Sept., 1988. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the vehicle in dispute was registered in the name of one Shri Sampat Lal, he sold this vehicle to Dhulichand and Hira Lal on 10th Aug. 1980. Dhulichand and Hira Lal sold the vehicle to one Shri Amba Lal and actual physical possession was handed over the Amba Lal and Amba Lal agreed to pay taxes in future and also agreed to undertake all the liability of the Insurance claimant, therefore, Amba Lal alone was liable to pay all the compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the agreement (Ex.A-1), which is executed between the Amba Lal as party No.1 and Dhuli Chand and Hira Lal as party No.2.

(4). Learned counsel for th appellant relied upon the single benchs judgment of this court delivered in the case of Murari Lal vs. Gumati Devi & Ors. (1), wherein this court pointed out that the distinction between `real owner and `registered owner and held that the person, who is in possession/incharge of the vehicle and who is dealing with the vehicle for his benefit is the owner as defined under Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1939). Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the Division benchs judgment of this Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. (2), wherein the R.S.R.T.C. took a bus on contract from the registered owner o the bus and the bus met with an accident and a question came for consideration, whether the R.S.R.T.C. is liable to pay the damages to the victims as bus was under the control of R.S.R.T.C. or registered owner is liable to pay the compensation. The plea of R.S.R.T.C. was that the liability is of the registered owner of the vehicle and of the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured. The Division Bench of this Court considered the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Pannalal vs. Sate of Bombay (3), and also judgment of this court delivered in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors. (4), and held that the R.S.R.T.C. is also liable to pay the compensation.

(5). It is true that the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Lal (supra) made clear the distinction between the `real owner and `registered owner and after considering the definition of the owner given in Section 2(19) of the Act of 1939 (Old Act) held that the real owner is liable to pay the compensation to the victims. The Division Bench of this Court in the above referred case (New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. R.S.R.T.C.) also held that the R.S.R.T.C., who was not the registered owner or ``true owner is liable to pay the compensation after taking note of the general proposition - ``the general proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer, that is the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible victoriously for the tort committed by the concerned employee during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority. But after that the Division Bench also observed, which is as under:-

``The question whether a condition in an agreement with the owner to be absolved itself form the liability arising out of the accident, is invalid as public policy, was not examined though the finding was recorded by the High Court that the condition 15 of the agreement, in the af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document