K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The first respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2169 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving a motor cycle with registration No. KL-8/V-9839 registered in the name of the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent and in the possession of the fourth respondent. According to the claimant, he sustained severe injuries in the accident. He is an agriculturist, aged 65 years, having a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- and claimed a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under various heads.

2. The appellant, who is the first respondent in the lower court, entered appearance and filed a counter contending that on the basis of the hire purchase agreement, the second respondent is in possession of the vehicle and he is in possession as a de facto owner and as such, the first respondent is not liable to pay any amount. They also denied the income, occupation, disability, etc. claimed in the petition. They further stated that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent and in case any compensation awarded, they are liable to pay compensation and they prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance. They also admitted that the vehicle was insured in the name of the first respondent. They have further stated that the second respondent, the rider of the motor vehicle have no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and as such, they are not liable to pay any amount as compensation. They also submitted that Valappad Police had taken a petty case against the second respondent for riding a motor cycle without valid and effective driving licence. They also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent and they have no liability to pay the amount. They challenged the quantum of compensation claimed as well. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. On the basis of the contentions raised the claimant filed I.A. No. 3768 of 2009 to implead Sri. Joshy E.P., S/o. Peethambaran, Erankizhakath House, Pallippuram, P.O. Valappad, as the additional fourth respondent and the same was allowed. But neither the second respondent nor the fourth respondent appeared and filed any statement. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the parties. Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the parties.

5. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and found the first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, liable. The court below found that the second respondent has no driving licence to drive the vehicle and so exonerated the insurance company from liability but directed them to pay the amount and recover the same from the first respondent under section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called 'the Act' for short. Aggrieved by the direction to recover the amount from the first respondent and other finding that making them liable to pay the amount, the above appeal has been preferred by the first respondent/financier in the case.

6. Heard Sri. Sunil Nair Palakkat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. K.C. Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent insurance company. Others remained absent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they are only the dejure owner and there is no liability for them as the vehicle was in the possession of the fourth respondent. So they are not liable to pay the compensation and the court below was not justified in ordering recovery of the amount from them. He had relied on the decision reported in