The Person in Control and Possession of The Vehicle Under An Agreement of Hypothecation Should Be Construed As The Owner and Not Alone The Registered Owner
The Person in Control and Possession of The Vehicle Under An Agreement of Hypothecation Should Be Construed As The Owner and Not Alone The Registered Owner
The Person in Control and Possession of The Vehicle Under An Agreement of Hypothecation Should Be Construed As The Owner and Not Alone The Registered Owner
... Appellant
Versus
... Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
2.
whereas
it
was
required
to
pay
7.
the
same
in
favour
of
the
claimant.
Mr.
the owner does not pay, the bank will pay the insurance
company and recover it from the borrower and hence, it would
be inapposite to interpret the contract in a different way to
fasten the liability on the financer.
It is canvassed by him
it is appropriate to
refer to Section 2 (30) of the Act which reads as follows:(30). owner means a person in whose name a
motor vehicle stands registered, and where such
person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and
in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of
a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease
or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in
possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
from
registered
owners
thereby
making
the
The
parties nor could it be pressed into service for proving that the
transaction was only of hypothecation in the garb of hire
purchase agreement.
10
Corporation not being the owner of the bus was not liable to
pay any compensation arising out of the accident because
driver who was driving the bus at the relevant time, was not in
the employment of the owner of the bus and not of the
Corporation and hence, it could not be held vicariously liable
for the rash and negligent act of the driver.
The Court
Be it stated, these
11
The owner
given case, the person who has the actual possession and
control of the vehicle and under whose directions and
commands the driver is obliged to operate the bus. To confine
12
control and
the
driver
was
to
act
under
the
13
14
(supra),
National
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
V.
4
5
6
7
8
9
15
Godavari
Finance
Company
V.
Degala
16
Owner of the
17
Thereafter, the
18
The
Tribunal had come to hold that Salig Ram alone was liable for
payment of compensation. On an appeal being preferred, the
High Court dismissed the appeals of the claimants.
This
That
apart,
that
the
Court
also
took
note
of
the
fact
12
19
of.
In
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
20
Amendment Act
of 1993)
wherein the
21
The Court
22
23
for
the
vehicle
which
is being
attached
with
the
24
25
26
person
in
possession
of
the
vehicle
under
the
27
28
29
........................................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
.........................................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
........................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 01, 2014.