LexM/S. GODAVARI FINANCE CO. versus DEGALA SATYANARAYANAMMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 231 M/S. GODAVARI FINANCE CO. A v DEGALA SATYANARAYANAMMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2725 of 2008) APRIL 10, 2008 B ~ [S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURAKAR, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 2 (30) and 168 - Motor I accident - Compensation - Offending vehicle subject of Hire Purchase Agreement - Liability of the financer of the vehicle c treating it as the owner - Courts below holding it liable - On appeal, held: The liability to pay compensation is not on the financer- In such matters ordinarily financer not to be treated as the owner- The person in possession of the vehicle would be the owner- Hence- It is essential to find out the liability of D the person who is involved in the use of the vehicles or the person who is vicariously liable. Words and Phrases- 'Owner' - Meaning of, in the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The offending vehicle, involved in a motor accident, E was subject of Hire Purchase Agreement with the appellant-Company. Therefore its name was mentioned in the Registration Book. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their claim petition for compensation for ) i agreement, alongwith the driver, owner and insurer, also F impleaded the appellant company. Appellant denied its liability to pay the compensation. Tribunal held it liable. High Court confirmed the order of the tribunal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for interpretation of various terms enumerated ,. therein. It starts with the phrase "Unless the context 231 H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A otherwise requires". The definition of "owner" is a comprehensive one. The interpretation clause itself states that the vehicle which is the subject matter of a Hire Purchase Agreement, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement shall be the owner. Thus, the name B of financer in the Registration Certificate would not be decisive for determination as to who was the owner of the vehicle. 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 c the absence of any other material brought on record or unless the context otherwise requires.[Para 12] [236-A, B, C, D] 1.2 In-case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a hire purchase agreement, the financer cannot ordinarily D be treated to be the owner. 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. [Para 13] [236-D, E] 1.3 Appellant was not liable to pay any compensation E to the claimants. An application for payment of compensation is filed before the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act for adjudicating upon the claim for compensation in respect of accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the F use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Use of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compensation. Ordinarily if driver of the vehicle would use the same, he remains in possession or control thereof. Owner of the G vehicle, although may not have anything to do with the use of vehicle at the time of the accident, actually he may be held to be constructively liable as the employer of the driver. What is, therefore, essential for passing an award is to find out the liabilities of the persons who are involved H in the use of the vehicle or the persons who are vicariously .. .. M/S. GODAVARI FINANCE CO. v. DEGALA 233 SATYANARAYANAMMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] ,I liable. The insurance company becomes a necessary A party to such claims as in the event the owner of the vehicle is found to be liable, it would have to reimburse the owner inasmuch as a vehicle is compulsorably insurable so far as a third party is concerned, as contemplated under Section 147 thereof. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt B ' whatsoever that the possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role. [Paras 16 and 18] [237-E, F, G; 238-A, B; 240-E, F] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kai/ash Nath Kothari and Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 481; National Insurance c Co. Ltd. vs. Oeepa Devi and Ors. 2007 (14) SCALE 168 - relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2725 of 2008. From the final Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.