JUDGMENT :

KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Lala and learned counsel for the respondent no. 7, Rishi Bharti.

2. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Tribal Welfare Commissioner (O.P. No. 1) against the Award dated 08.03.2018, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 48/2010 whereby the claimants, namely, 1. Anju Devi, 2. Pratibha Kumari, 3. Nirmala Kumari, 4. Kalpana Kumari and 5. Sangita Kumari, all R/o Village-Pushu, P.O. and P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi, have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,80,544/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of the claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act i.e. 14.08.2015 till its realization. The Award has been passed against the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi being O.P. No. 1 before the learned Tribunal and Group leader (GL) namely, Shiva Oraon and nine others (O.P. No. 3) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, the Tribal Welfare Commissioner has been given right to recover the compensation amount against the joint co-owners of the offending bus after satisfying the awards to the claimants with regard to their share, not with regard to share of compensation awarded against the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Lala has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact, that under valid agreement, the actual control of the bus was with group of ten Tribals under Group leader, Shiva Oraon. The driver of the offending bus was under their control, directions & commands and they were earning profit from the business and thus they were the owners of the bus for the purpose of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi by holding that Tribal Welfare Commissioner shall also make payment of his share of compensation along with the compensation as payable by Shiva Oraon and nine others and thereafter to realize the same from ten Tribals with regard to their respective shares meaning thereby one share, there out of eleven shares has to be borne by the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi for indemnifying the compensation amount to the claimants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has misconstrued in considering Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi as the one of owner of the bus, on the basis of his name mentioned in the registration certificate of the bus along with group leader, Shiva Oraon and nine others.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari and Others, 1997 (7) SCC 481, Para 17 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:

17. The definition of owner under Section 2(19) of the Act is not exhaustive. It has, therefore to be construed, in a wider sense, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The expression owner must include, in a 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 the meaning of “owner” to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident. The liability of the “owner” is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident. In this case, Shri San