1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgementt and award dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Auxi.), 4th Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 553 of 2005, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 154500/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2.0 The original claimants had filed application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “the Act”) on account of death of Sanjaykumar Somabhai in a vehicular accident that occurred on 15.08.2005. The Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award in claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, which is challenged in this appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the present respondent No.3 original opponent No.1 made an agreement of hypothecation in favour of present appellant original opponent No.2 and therefore, because of the said hypothecation agreement present appellant does not become the owner of the vehicle and when the appellant is not the owner of the vehicle then the present appellant neither independently nor jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He placed reliance on the decision on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Godavari Finance Co. V. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2493 wherein it is held that the financier cannot be treated as owner of the vehicle and liability to pay compensation cannot be saddled on him. He further invited attention of the decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 2537 of 2009.
4.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant. The only question to be considered in the appeal is whether the appellant is liable to satisfy the award or not.
5.0 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.
6.0 In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. 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 If the amount has already been deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the claimants, it shall not be permissible for it to recover the amount from the claimants. It is also clarified that the claimants, in any case, would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation awarded to them from the respondent No.3 who is owner of the vehicle. If any amount lying with the Registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*