{1} fa74811.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.748 OF 2011 Indus Ind. Bank Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory/ Manager, working for and on behalf of the Indus Ind. Bank Ltd., Branch Office at Vazirabad, Nanded. Appellant Versus 1 Kiran s/o Dashrath Vedulwad, age: 21 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Nanded. 2 Rajesh s/o Gokuldas Uplendhwar, aged major, Occ: Business & owner of auto No.MH-26/H-2708, R/o Kasrali, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 3 National Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at Nagina Ghat Road, Nanded. 4 Piraji s/o Laxman Chavan, age: major, Occ: Business & owner of auto No.MH-26/H-1868, R/o a/p Patoda (Kd.), Tq.Biloli, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.Mahesh V. Ghatge, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gajanan G. Kadam, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.D.V.Soman, advocate for Respondent No.3. {2} fa74811.odt Mr.V.B.Bilolikar, advocate for Respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 served. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th July, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Appeal is admitted and taken up forthwith for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is an appeal preferred by the financier – original Respondent No.4, raising exception to the order dated 01.01.2011, passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, below Exhibit-5 in M.A.C.P. No.25/2008. 3 The application tendered by the original claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability has been allowed by the Tribunal in view of the impugned order passed on 01.01.2011. 4 The only point involved in the appeal is, whether the liability in respect of payment of compensation towards ‘no fault’ can be fastened against the financier of the vehicle. It is not disputed that the appellant herein has extended finance for purchase of the vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4 herein – {3} fa74811.odt original Respondent No.3. It is also not disputed that there was Hire-Purchase Agreement executed by the owner of the vehicle with the financier and as such, name of the financier appears in the Registration Certificate. Since the name of the financier is included in the Registration Certificate, the appellant herein – financier is impleaded as party respondent and the Tribunal, while passing the order in respect of payment of compensation towards no fault liability against the respondents, has also fastened liability in respect of payment of compensation on the appellant herein – financier. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – financier places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Godavari Finance Co. Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2493. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus: “12 Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of various terms enumerated therein. It starts with the phrase “Unless the context otherwise requires”. The definition of “owner” is comprehensive one. The interpretation clause itself states that the vehicle which is the subject-matter of a Hire- Purchase Agreement, the person in possession {4} fa74811.odt of vehicle under that agreement shall be the owner. Thus, the name of financier in the Registration Certificate would not be decisive for determination as to who was the owner of the vehicle. We are not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily the person in whose name the Registration Certificate stands should be presumed to be the owner but such a presumption can be drawn only in the absence of any other material brought on record or unless the context otherwise requires. 13 In case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a Hire-Purchase Agreement, the financier cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financier being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident.” 6 Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the financier cannot be fastened with the liability in respect of payment of amount towards no fault liability, as directed by the tribunal in terms of the order dated 01.01.2011. 7 Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant makes a statement that the claimant has tendered an application seeking execution of the order and he is not pressing his claim as against the financier. 8 Considering the statement made by the claimant and {5} fa74811.odt considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, as against the financier, is not sustainable. 9 In this view of the matter, appeal presented by the financier – appellant herein is allowed and it is ordered that the direction issued by the Tribunal on 01.01.2011, in respect of payment of amount towards no fault liability, shall not bind the financier. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of. R.M.BORDE adb/fa74811 JUDGE