IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A.No. £Ti OF 2004 ./ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 w Zila Anlyavsayee Co—operaiive Deveiopment Society, Camposite Buildin, Bilaspur, Disirict Bilaspur, Chhamsgarh Through: Executive omcer, Shri SD. Singh, Composiie Building Bilaspur, District Biiaspur, Chhamsgarh VERSUS i RESPON DENTS ) Pardeg-J, _aged abom 35 gears, Slo. Bikai Yadav, Rio Buhasar, Tehsil’ Tkhatpur, Dislt, Biispur, Chhatiisgarh Vinnd, aged about 37 years, Slo. Chote @ Hjariial, Rio. Village Barel. Tahsi! Takhatpur. District Bilaspur, Chhaitisgarh Anil Kumar, aged about 20 years, Sla. Late Shn' Tiriih Ram, Sunii Kumar, aged about 18 years, Slo. Laie Shri Tiriih Ram, I Respondem No.3 and 4 are Rlor Viiiage: Near Lidri Road, Poiice Slalion Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhaiiisgarh / \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. No. 272 of 2004 Zifa Antyavsayee Co-operative Development Society. VERSUS Pardesi & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES AC . 133: Hon‘bie Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J4 Present : appeikant. Shri RS Marhas with Shri Prashant Gupta, advocates for None Shri Anand for respandent Gupta, Advocate No. 2. for respondent _No. 1. Shri Akhtar Husain, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02.12.2011) ~ This is financer’s appeal chailenging the award dated 15.1 1 .2003, passed by the Nth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 11/2000 awarding compensation also against the appellant. Brief facts of the case are : Matador bearing registration No. MP- 26-C~5455 was purchased by Rafter Parivahan Samiti (for short ‘the Society’) consisting of 5-6 members, which was financed by the appellant on the basis of hire-purchase agreement. Late Teerath Ram was President of the said society. Undisputedly, the 'vehicle was in possessidn of the society of which Teerath Ram was the President. The said vehicle met with an accident on 25.04.1996 in which Rajesh Yadav, aged about 8 years i.e. son of claimant/Pardesi died. APPELLANT RE$PONDENTS Father 'of the deceased Rajesh Yadav, by filing claim petiticn under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) against the appellant, legal heirs of Teerath Ram and driver oioffending vehicle, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest and costs. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence ted, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driverNinod; appellant and respondent No. 2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimantfrespondent No. 1; assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of application till its actual payment. Shri RS Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit the appellant is not the owner of vehicle. The appellant has only financed the vehicle under hire-purchase agreement, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed manifest error in holding the appellant also liable for payment of compensation. On the other hand, Shri Akhtar Husain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 i.e. legal heir of Teerath Ram, submitted that vehicle was purchased by the Sgciety; late Teerath Ram was its President but every members of the society including Teerath Ram were the owners of the vehicle; the claim petition was preferred without impleading either the Society or its a" members, and therefore, award is bad however he has not disputed the fact that vehicle was purchased by the Society under hire-purchase agreement and the Society was in possession of the vehicle at the time of accident. Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supported the award impugned and submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case the appeai deserves to be dismissed. i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned as weli as records of the Tribunal. As per submission of the parties, it is crystal clear that late Teerath Ram was not the sole owner of the vehicle but was one t ’ of the owner of vehicle and was also the President of the said Society. The claimant failed to implead all the members of the society or society itself as non applicants. It is also not in dispute that appellant is the financer who financed the offending vehicle under hire-purchase agreement and the vehicle was in possession and control of the said Society. 10. As per Section 2 (30) of the MV Act, "owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such' minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire- purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease gr an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. As per above definition, if the vehicle is subjec matter of hire- purchase agreement, the person who is in possession of the vehicie is the owner of the vehicle. in view of above, certainly the Society is the owner of the vehicle and not the appellant, therefore, the Tribunal has committed manifest error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation and the award holding appellant jointly and severally able for payment of compensation to the claimant is lial to be set aside. However, the respondent No. 'l/claimant, without impleading the Society and its other members as non- applicants, has filed the claim petition and Teerath Ram alone . cannot be held as sole owner of the vehicle. Therefore, no option left with this court but to remand the matter for decision afresh after affording due opportunity to the claimant to impiead the Society and its other members as non-applicants in the claim appliation. c For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part, award impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned ibunal for deciding claim petition afresh in the light of obrvationof this court mad hereinabove after giving opportunity to the claiant to implead the Society and its other members as party respondent i the claim petition. Nedless to mention, the Tribunal sall afford proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to tile additional documents, if any. t li be Tr se e m n e h The ciaimant need not to refund the amount deposited by the appellant and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate order while passing the award. Records of Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.01 .2012. No ord asto costs. er V\Li i Ad Sdl- N. K. Agarwal Judge i‘