Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit vs Thibli Bai

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—The principal question involved in this appeal is whether the financier of the vehicle would be liable to pay the amount of compensation for the death of driver-cum-owner of the vehicle. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur), in Claim Case No. 6 of 2001 by which the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum has been fastened on the appellant financier of the vehicle.

Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

2.1. Respondents-claimants being legal representatives of deceased Gopal Ram, who died in a motor accident on 27.4.1998, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal stating, inter alia, that Gopal Ram, while driving the offending vehicle/tractor-trolley (unregistered), owned and being driven by himself, suffered death. It was further pleaded that the said vehicle was purchased by Gopal Ram after obtaining loan from the appellant society. It was also pleaded that the appellant society had undertaken to get the vehicle insured but they did not get the vehicle insured. It was finally pleaded that they are entitled to get Rs. 9,02,000 as compensation for the death of Gopal Ram from appellant society.

2.2. The appellant society filed written statement before the Claims Tribunal pleading, inter alia, that the appellant society is only a financial institution and loan of Rs. 2,00,000 was granted to Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley pursuant to the application made by him. It was further pleaded that being financier of the vehicle they are not liable to pay compensation.

2.3. The claimants-respondents examined Thibli Bai, claimant No. 1, in which she has deposed that the offending vehicle (tractor-trolley) was owned by her husband Gopal Ram and he died in an accident arising out of the use of said tractor-trolley. She has also stated that an application was also made before the appellant society vide Exh. D1 for handing over that tractor and trolley to her son Vijay Kumar and he will pay the loan amount. She also deposed that the application, Exh. D2, was filed before the Collector, Surguja, for permission to run the tractor and trolley so that she may pay the balance loan amount.

2.4. The appellant society examined Namdeo Pavnikar, NAW 1. He has deposed that pursuant to the application, Exh. D3, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 was granted as loan to deceased Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley and the agreement, Exh. D4, was also executed before the appellant society. He further deposed that the tractor-trolley was owned by Gopal Ram and the said tractor was purchased upon grant of sanction through M.P. Agro Industries.

2.5. The learned Claims Tribunal by its award dated 30.7.2002, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the application u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable for the death of Gopal Ram and the appellant society is responsible for payment of compensation and directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000.

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant society, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that the appellant being financier would be liable to make payment of compensation because admittedly, the deceased himself was owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant financier of the vehicle.

Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava, assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant society in view of clause 4 and clause 6 of the hire-purchase agreement, Exh. D4 and, therefore, the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the claim application, particularly paras 5, 10 and 15, would show that the claimants themselves have clearly mentioned and admitted in the application u/s 166 of the Act, 1988, that the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle and not only the owner of the vehicle but also driving himself on the date of accident, i.e. 27.4.1998. They have also mentioned in paras 15 and 22(b) of the application, that deceased Gopal Ram had obtained a loan and he had purchased the tractor and trolley and formalities for grant of loan were completed by the appellant society. The matter did not stop here. Thibli Bai, claimant No. 1, appeared before the Claims Tribunal and she deposed that the owner of the tractor was her husband Gopal Ram, who died in an accident arising out of the use of the vehicle. She also made application before the competent authority of the appellant financier for release of the vehicle vide Exh. D1.

Namdeo Pavnikar, NAW 1, witness of the appellant society, has clearly deposed before the court that the loan of Rs. 2,00,000 was financed to Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley by way of loan and vide application, Exh. Dl, made by Gopal Ram, an agreement was executed between them and he was the owner of the tractor-trolley on the date of accident. Thus there is overwhelming evidence on record to hold that deceased Gopal Ram himself was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and while driving the same he suffered accident in which he sustained injury and died. Thus, deceased Gopal Ram himself was the owner and driver on the date of accident.

There is also sufficient evidence on record to hold that the appellant society was only a financier of the vehicle as the loan of Rs. 2,00,000 was financed to deceased Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley by way of loan and after purchasing of the said tractor and trolley it was handed over to the deceased Gopal Ram, as such the capacity of the appellant society was only of a financier of the vehicle and beyond that nothing more. Therefore, for the death or bodily injuries suffered by owner Gopal Ram no liability can be fastened on the financier-appellant.

The Apex Court in Godavari Finance Co. Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma and Others, , has held that in case of motor cycle, which is subjected to hire-purchase agreement, financier cannot ordinarily be treated as owner. The person, who is in possession of the vehicle and not the financier being the owner, would be liable to pay the damages for the motor vehicle. In that case, the appellant admittedly was the financier of the vehicle, as the vehicle was the subject-matter of hire-purchase agreement and appellant''s name was mentioned in the registration book, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

In the present case, the deceased being in possession of the vehicle as owner of vehicle, therefore, the appellant society cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

Having regard to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid case and applying the ratio of the aforesaid case, it is held that the appellant being only financier of the offending vehicle, therefore, the appellant society cannot be held liable to pay the compensation to the respondents-claimants for the death of deceased Gopal Ram (owner of the vehicle).

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant financier deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The application filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants is hereby dismissed. However, the claimants would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law to file application, if permissible and dismissal of the application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not be a bar. In the facts and circumstances of the case; there shall be no order as to costs. Financier of the vehicle would not be liable to pay the amount of compensation for death in vehicular accident. The application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is dismissed.