M.V.Act - sec.146 - Owner definition - Hypothecation agreement - Hire purchase agreement -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 consequence of which she sustained a fracture in
the right hand superacondylar fracture and humerus bone fracture and certain other injuries. -she filed claim petition - Tribunal awarded compensation directing to pay compensation jointly and severally - the stand and stance put forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank that it had only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was executed on 1.11.2002 by it. As per the terms of the agreement, the owner of the vehicle was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs. Reliance was placed on Clause 16 and 17 of the loan agreement which stipulated that the bank was required to get the vehicle insured if the borrower failed to or neglected to get the vehicle insured. 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 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. Ltd., whereas
it was required to pay Rs.9,444/-. Despite the same, he obtained the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was not permissible. - High court dismissed the appeal of the Bank on this point - Apex court held that Section 146 of the Act that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without insurance as that is the mandatory statutory requirement under the 1988 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 or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." - He had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the full premium to the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured.-The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financer being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the
motor accident. -there is evidence on record that the respondent no.2, without the insurance plied
the vehicle in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 146 of the 1988 Act, the High Court could not have mulcted the liability on the financier. The appreciation by the learned Single Judge in appeal, both in fact and law, is wholly unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid premises, we allow the appeals and hold that the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, the respondent no. 2 herein and not that of the financier and accordingly that part of the
direction in the award is set aside. However, as has been conceded to by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, no steps shall be taken for realisation of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. -2015 S.C.(2014) msklawreports
the right hand superacondylar fracture and humerus bone fracture and certain other injuries. -she filed claim petition - Tribunal awarded compensation directing to pay compensation jointly and severally - the stand and stance put forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank that it had only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was executed on 1.11.2002 by it. As per the terms of the agreement, the owner of the vehicle was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs. Reliance was placed on Clause 16 and 17 of the loan agreement which stipulated that the bank was required to get the vehicle insured if the borrower failed to or neglected to get the vehicle insured. 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 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. Ltd., whereas
it was required to pay Rs.9,444/-. Despite the same, he obtained the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was not permissible. - High court dismissed the appeal of the Bank on this point - Apex court held that Section 146 of the Act that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without insurance as that is the mandatory statutory requirement under the 1988 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 or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." - He had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the full premium to the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured.-The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financer being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the
motor accident. -there is evidence on record that the respondent no.2, without the insurance plied
the vehicle in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 146 of the 1988 Act, the High Court could not have mulcted the liability on the financier. The appreciation by the learned Single Judge in appeal, both in fact and law, is wholly unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid premises, we allow the appeals and hold that the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, the respondent no. 2 herein and not that of the financier and accordingly that part of the
direction in the award is set aside. However, as has been conceded to by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, no steps shall be taken for realisation of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. -2015 S.C.(2014) msklawreports
