The name of the appellant as a financer indisputably was incorporated in the Registration Book of the vehicle.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal by a judgment dated 28th October, 1998 awarded a sum of Rs.2,08,000/ in favour of the respondent Nos.
The said loan was discharged by him by the end of 1995.
6th February, 1995 which was cancelled on 10th November, 1995.
Indisputably the said vehicle had all along been in possession and companytrol of the fourth respondent herein.
It further revealed that the said vehicle was held under a Hire Purchase Agreement with the appellant w.e.f.
The objection of the appellant that it was number liable to pay any amount of companypensation together with the owner of the vehicle, driver and insurance companypany was rejected by the Tribunal stating In the light of the decisions cited above, the legal position that emerges is that it is the person who is in actual possession and companytrol of the vehicle, who can be brought under the definition of owner, under the Act in order to make him tortuously liable for the acts of the servant and the burden lies upon the party, who asserts it and on their failure adverse inference can be drawn and the financier can also fastened with liability alongwith the registered owner.
It met with an accident on 29th May, 1995.
Respondent Nos.
Appellant herein filed a written statement stating that on the date of accident the ownership of the vehicle was solely with the 4th respondent and number with the appellant.
2725 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C NO.
In the said accident one Degala Balakrishana died.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1 and 2 filed an application claiming companypensation alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said vehicle.
3rd June, 1992.
21500 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
On or about 18th June, 1998, the appellant herein was impleaded in the proceeding on the premises that it was the financer of the said vehicle.
However, the extract of Registration Book revealed that the vehicle was registered in the name of the 4th respondent only w.e.f.
Whether a financer would be an owner of a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the Act is the companye question involved herein.
Praveen Kumar, fourth respondent, was the owner of a vehicle being a mini truck of Mahendra Nissan make purchased by him having been financed by the appellant for a sum of Rs.50,000/ .
