Whether Finance Company, which has advanced loan for the purpose of purchase of vehicle under the 'Hire Purchase Agreement' or on Hypothecation can be said to be the owner of the Vehicle & . Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of prosecution or nonappearance of the claimant and/or his Advocate:

 Whether Finance Company, which has advanced loan for the purpose of purchase of vehicle under the 'Hire Purchase Agreement' or on Hypothecation can be said to be the owner of the Vehicle & . Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of prosecution or nonappearance of the claimant and/or his Advocate:

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance v/s

Degala Satyanarayananamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 1612 has

held in para 13 as under:“

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”.

Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of

Anup Sarmah v/s Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in IV (2012) CPJ

3 (SC), para No.8 & 9.

Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of

HDFC Bank v/s Resham (FB) 2015

ACJ 1 (SC). Following this judgment, Hon’ble Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the MV Act. In the case of Naveen Kumar v/s. Vijay Kumar, 2018 SCALE 263 (FBSC) = 2018 ACJ 677 (SC).

In the recent decision Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Central Bank of India v/s Jagbir Singh, reported in 2015 ACJ

1513 has held that liability of Financier/bank to get vehicle

insured is only till vehicle comes out on the road and

Financier/Bank is not liable to get the insurance policy renewed

on behalf of the owner of the vehicle from time to time.

Vehicle subject to pledge agreement Owner of the Vehicle

means – bank is in possession of the vehicle under agreement of

pledge – under such circumstances, owner of the such vehicle is

the bank, even though vehicle is registered in the name of the

pledger.Himmatnager Nagriksahkari Bank Ltd. V/s Sureshkumar J.

Thakkar, reported in AIR 2016 Guj 68. Also see 2018 ACJ 1254

(Hyd)

Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of

prosecution or nonappearance of the claimant and/or his

Advocate:

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai

Narsingbhai Chaudhry v/s Malek Rafik Malek Himantbhai

Malek, reported in 2012 ACJ 1262 = AIR 2011 Gujarat 150 has

held in Para No.5.14 and 6.1 that Claims Tribunals are not

empowered to dismiss claim application for default of claimant

after framing of issues. It is further held that Tribunals are

required to decide claim petitions on merits with a view to

provide substantial justice to the victim of accident, keeping in

mind the object of benevolent legislation, instead of entering

into niceties and technicalities.

However, Full Benches of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the

case of Jacob Thomas v. C. Pandian, reported in AIR 2006

Kerala 77 and Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of

Mohammad Yousuf Wani v/s Abdul Rehman Gujri, reported in

AIR 1982 J & K 146 have taken a view that when Order 9 of CPC

is specifically made applicable to proceedings before claims

Tribunal, it cannot be said that Tribunal has no power to dismiss

application for default when the case is posted for hearing if

claimant is absent and respondents are present. But, S. 168 did

not insist that in all cases award should be passed but only

directed that Tribunal "may make an award", once it makes a

judgement or award, mandates of Rules framed under the Act

has to be complied with.