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 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:-

            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)

When an accident, involving two vehicles and driver of one of the unknown vehicle sped away after the accident, whether in such situation, claim petition is maintainable against the other tortfeasor, in view of the provisions contained under Sections

 

            Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.3354 of 2000 with Civil Application No.746 of 2005, dated 13.7.2005 has held that in such situation claim petition is not maintainable. But Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhanuben P. Joshi V/s. Kantilal B. Parmar, reported in 1994 ACJ 714 (DB) has held otherwise. Facts of the Bhanuben P. Joshi (supra) as under:­

 

            In the said case accident occurred because one unknown truck dashed the motor cycle from behind and after the accident, truck driver sped away with the truck and remained unidentified and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. Claimants of the said claim petition averred that motor cycle was being driven by its rider at excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that there was no rashness on the part of the motor cyclist. After noting the said facts Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that motor cycle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and in flagrant violation of traffic rules and regulations and finally reversed the finding of Tribunal.

 

            It is also held in para No.9 of the above referred ratio, namely Bhanuben P. Joshi (supra) that victims of road accident are entitled to claim compensation from all or any of them

the joint tortfeasors, it would not be necessary to apportion the extent of contribution of each driver of happening of unfortunate accident.

 

            From the above referred ratios it becomes clear that even if driver and owner of the unknown vehicle is not joined as parties opponents, claim petition is maintainable against any one of the tortfeasors.

 

        The other issue is whether in a Hit and Run case, claimant can claim fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/­ u/s 140 the M.V. Act when claimant has not filed an application under the scheme framed u/s 161 of the M.V. Act. In A. Prakash v/s General Manager, reported in 2015 ACJ 203 (AP), it is held that claimant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/­ u/s 140 of the M.V. Act.