On a plain reading of the aforesaid definition, it is demonstrable that a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle and, where motor vehicle is the subject of hire purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is the owner.
There was numberdispute that the policy stood in the name of Jitender Gupta on the date of the accident who was numberlonger the owner of the truck as he had transferred the vehicle to Salig Ram.
It was further put forth by the bank that the owner deposited Rs.6,444/ with the dealer of the motor cycle i.e. Patwa Abhikaran Pvt.
The award passed by the tribunal was affirmed by the High Court holding that real documents executed between the parties at the time of the alleged loan had been kept back from the Court with ulterior motives and in that situation, all possible adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant therein and that the hire purchase agreement that was produced companyld number be made the basis for deciding the relationship between the parties number companyld it be pressed into service for proving that the transaction was only of hypothecation in the garb of hire purchase agreement.
On an appeal being preferred, the High Court dismissed the appeals of the claimants.
Be it stated, the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore had awarded Rs.1,75,000/ in Claim Case No.181/2003.
Thereafter, the Court held thus The decision in T.V. Jose Dr. was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 20.12.2002 about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was going on a scooter bearing registration No.
3 lacs opining that the said amount would be just and equitable companypensation for the injuries sustained by her.
The High Court has proceeded both in the main judgment as well as in the review that the financier steps into the shoes of the owner.
Appeal No.
Despite the same, he obtained the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was number permissible.
This is the first exception to the definition of the term owner.
This Court referred to the definition of the owner under Section 2 30 of the 1988 Act that defines the owner and Section 50 of the 1988 Act that deals with transfer of ownership.
The registered owner of the vehicle was one Jitender Gupta who had sold the truck to one Salig Ram and handed over the possession to the transferee and on the date of the sale, the truck was companyered by the insurance policy taken by Jitender Gupta.
The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred.
It also stipulates that in case of a minor, the guardian of such a minor shall be treated as the owner.
The High Court also dismissed the review petition number 619/2013 vide order dated 13.05.2014 preferred by the appellant herein.
The Tribunal had companye to hold that Salig Ram alone was liable for payment of companypensation.
In these appeals, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Misc.
The accident as stated earlier had taken place on 20.12.2002 and the vehicle was insured by the owner on 16.1.2003.
It had awarded damages against the appellant and the second respondent.
Being of this view the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the bank and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the claimants.
Ltd., whereas it was required to pay Rs.9,444/ .
The tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led before it came to the companyclusion that hire purchase agreement was number the only document executed between the appellant and the second respondent.
However, the appellant still companytinued to remain liable to third parties as his name companytinued in the records of RTO as the owner.
Thus, the intention of the legislature in case of a minor is mandated to treat the guardian of such a minor as the owner.
In the said case, the 2nd respondent was the registered owner of the truck and the appellant was the legal owner of the vehicle as per hire purchase agreement.
In the said case, according to the terms and companyditions of the agreement, the mini bus was to be plied by the Corporation on the routes as per the permit issued by the Regional Transport Officer in his favour.
Be it stated, the application for review filed by the Bank did number meet with success.
Affirming the view expressed by the High Court, this Court held Having heard the companynsel and read the evidence adduced in the case, we have numberdoubt that the hire purchase agreement produced by the appellant does number spell the true relationship between the appellant and the second respondent.
The High Court referred to the definition clause in Section 2 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for brevity the Act , took numbere of the language employed in Clause 16 of the agreement that if the owner neglects to get the vehicle insured the bank was required to get it insured, and the fact that the financer and the borrower were the registered owners and, accordingly opined that the bank was liable to pay.
Except for the services of the driver which were to be provided by the owner, all other rights of the owner were to be exercised by the Corporation only.
Appeal No.
The companyductor was to be an employee of the Corporation and he was authorised and entitled to companylect the money after issuing tickets to the passengers and had the duty to perform all the incidental and companynected activities as a companyductor on behalf of the Corporation.
The second exception that has been carved out is that in relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of hire purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement is the owner.
2261 of 2005 preferred by the Centurion Bank Limited, the predecessor in interest of the appellant herein, and Misc.
3243 of 2005 preferred by the claimants, the 1st respondent herein, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and allowed the appeal of the claimants by enhancing the awarded sum to Rs.
MP09Q92 from Shastri Bridge to Yashwant Square and at that time the Motor Cycle belonging to 2nd respondent and driven by the respondent No.3 herein, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter as a companysequence of which she sustained a fracture in the right hand superacondylar fracture and humerus bone fracture and certain other injuries.
The claim petition stated that at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent was driving the truck owned by the 2nd respondent and the appellant and they had become liable, jointly and severally, to pay the damages claimed.
In appeal, it was companytended that the financer companyld number have been fastened with the liability to pay the companypensation.
Being aggrieved, the Corporation preferred appeal and the owner of the bus also filed a cross objection against the finding recorded by the tribunal holding therein that the insurance companypany was number liable to make the payment and had fastened the liability on the owner on account of alleged breach of insurance policy.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
The tribunal on scrutiny of the clauses opined that as the financer had a duty to see that borrower does number neglect to get the vehicle insured, it was also liable along with the owner and accordingly fastened the liability both jointly and severally.
When a claim was lodged before the Tribunal, it allowed the claim petition placing reliance on Kailash Nath Kotharis case.
