The legal principle established is that possession and control over the vehicle are crucial in determining the 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this order, FAO No.1109, 1112 and 1388 of 2018, filed by the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, shall stand disposed of.

2. Some facts are required to be noticed.

3. In an accident which is alleged to have taken place on 28.10.2016, 3 precious lives were lost. Late Smt. Bhanwanti alongwith her two daughters met with an unfortunate end in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a bus bearing registration plate No.PB-02-CC-6390. Three claim petitions were filed, out of which two were filed by the father of two deceased daughters respectively and one by the husband of late Smt. Bhanwanti alongwith another daughter. In the claim petition, three respondents-Additional Commissioner Technical-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Amritsar, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Kanwardeep Singh (spelled in the MACT award as Kawrandeep Singh), driver of the offending vehicle and the New India Assurance Company Limited, respectively, were impleaded as parties. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, filed its written statement by asserting that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Kanwardeep Singh, respondent no.2-driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex-parte. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal') framed issue no.3 with respect to non-joinder of the necessary parties. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Junior Engineer, an official of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, appeared in evidence and reiterated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was stated that the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, had engaged M/s Sri Anantha Padmanabha Transit Private Ltd., to run the State Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that the driver of the bus was also employed by the aforesaid contracting company and was under its control.

4. Unfortunately, the Tribunal after having framed a specific issue No.3, did not go deep into it and decided the claim petition by just observing that the registered owner of the offending vehicle is the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company.

5. That is how these three appeals have been filed.

6. In the appeals, M/s Sri Anantha Padmanabha Transit Private Ltd. was added as respondent no.3. The appellant also filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence so as to produce on record the written contract entered into between the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the transport operator.

7. It may be noted here that the learned counsel representing the appellant has made a statement on 17.12.2020 that he does not wish to press these appeals against Ram Chander-respondent no.1. Thus, the service of notice of the appeals to Ram Chander was dispensed with.

8. This Bench has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

9. Learned counsel representing the appellant while referring to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act') submits that the word 'owner' includes the person, who has taken control of the vehicle on an agreement of lease. He, hence, contends that in view of the contract entered into between the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and respondent no.3-M/s Sri Anantha Padmanabha Transit Private Ltd., the vehicle was on lease with respondent no.3 and therefore, the appellant, who is the registered owner, could not be fastened with the liability to pay to the Insurance Company. He, in support of his arguments, relies upon the judgments passed in Purnya Kala Devi vs. State of assam and another, (2014) 14 SCC 142 and HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Kumari Reshma and others, (2015) 3 SCC 679.

10. Per contra, learned counsels, appearing for respondent No.2- Insurance Company and respondent no.3-M/s Sri Anantha Padmanabha Transit Private Ltd., have submitted that the Municipal Corporation is the registered owner of the offending vehicle