The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of possession and control of a vehicle in determining liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

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 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 vehicl