1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.08.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad below Exh.6 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.53 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25000/ along with interest at the rate of of 9% per annum.
2.0 The original claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came to be registered as M.A.C.P No.53 of 2007. The said claim was filed in view of the accident which has occurred between the vehicles owned by the present respondent nos.2 and 3. The claimants have also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act claiming interim compensation wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
3.0 The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to satisfy the award or not.
3.1 It is the case of the appellant that the original application under Section 140 of the Act was filed against the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 describing the present respondent No.3 as the owner of the motor cycle. Afterwards an application was moved by the claimants on the ground that the appellant is hypothecated owner of the motor cycle bearign registration NO. GJ7AM1289 and therefore the appellant is required to be joined as party. The Tribunal allowed the said application. However, the fact remains that the appellant is neither insurer nor owner of the vehicle. This aspect could not be disputed by the other side.
4.0 In the case of M/s Godavari Finance Co. V. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2493 the Apex Court held that the financier cannot be treated as owner of the vehicle and liability to pay compensation cannot be saddled on him. The ratio laid down in the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore the Tribunal has erroneously saddled the appellant with the liability.
5.0 In the premises aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award qua the present appellant is quashed and set aside. If the amount has already been deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the claimant, it will be open to the appellant to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*