FAO No. 4327 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4327 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2010 M/s Sorabh Financial Corporation Regd., Rohtak ..Appellant v. Puran Chand and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant before this court is the person, who had financed the vehicle involved in the accident. He is in appeal impugning the award passed by the Tribunal, whereby while directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, it was given right to recover the same from the owner and driver and also the appellant. Briefly, the facts are that on 25.8.1999, respondent No.1-claimant Puran Chand was going towards Panipat from his house for purchasing household goods on his bicycle. When he reached on Kabri road, a tralla bearing No. HR 46- 5277, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of Puran Chand. As a result of the accident, he received injuries. In the claim petition, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation to respondent No. 1-claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal while giving right to recover the compensation to the Insurance Company from the appellant in spite of only being the financer of the vehicle are totally contrary to the settled position of law as it is only the driver and owner, who are liable to pay the compensation to the claimant in a motor vehicular accident and in case the vehicle so involved is found to be insured and there is no violation of any of the terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. The financer does not come in picture anywhere. His role is only to provide finance the owner to buy the vehicle and get the repayment thereof in instalments. He is neither in control of the vehicle, as the same always remains in FAO No. 4327 of 2009 [2] control and custody of the owner of the vehicle. Reliance was placed upon M/s Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others, 2008(3) PLR 257. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Godavari Finance Co.'s case (supra). No judgment taking a contrary view was cited. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Godavari Finance Co.'s case (supra), while dealing with the question as to whether a financer would be an owner of the vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, answered the same in negative while holding that a financer of the motor vehicle cannot be treated as owner thereof and it is only the person who is in possession of the vehicle who would be liable to pay the damages for a motor accident. In view of the legal position settled in the aforesaid case, this court has no option but to set aside the part of the award of the Tribunal whereby right has been given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant, being a financer of the vehicle. However, the other part of the impugned award will remain intact. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.4.2010 mk