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 Dh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document