Vehicle ownership under Motor Vehicles Act not solely based on financer name in Registration Book.

The court held that a financer cannot be considered the owner of a vehicle under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, solely based on the financer's name in the Registration Book. Possession and control of the vehicle under a Hire Purchase Agreement determine ownership. The appellant, as a financer, was not liable for compensation as they were not in possession or control of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The judgment set aside the liability of the financer for compensation, allowing the appeal with no costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Whether a financer would be an owner of a motor vehicle u/s 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Ownership of a motor vehicle by a financer
- The case involved determining if a financer can be considered the owner of a vehicle under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The vehicle in question, a mini truck, was purchased by the fourth respondent and financed by the appellant.
- Despite the financer's name being in the Registration Book, the vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent and a Hire Purchase Agreement was in place.
- The Tribunal awarded compensation against the appellant, holding that the person in actual possession and control of the vehicle can be considered the owner.
- The appellant contended that as the Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled, it should not be held liable for compensation.

Issue 2: Liability of the financer for compensation
- The appellant argued that as per Section 168 of the Act, a financer cannot be held liable for compensation unless they are the registered owner.
- It was emphasized that the claimants did not establish that the appellant was in possession or control of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
- The Tribunal and High Court's finding that the appellant, as a registered owner, was liable for compensation was deemed unsustainable.

Legal Principles and Precedents:
- The interpretation of the term "owner" under Section 2 of the Act was discussed, highlighting that possession of the vehicle under a Hire Purchase Agreement determines ownership.
- Previous cases, such as Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nth Kothari and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi, were cited to establish liability based on possession and control of the vehicle.
- The judgment concluded that the appellant, as a financer, was not liable to pay compensation based on the legal principles and precedents discussed.

Conclusion:
- The impugned judgment holding the appellant liable for compensation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no costs.

---