Financers of vehicles are not liable for compensation if the owner is the driver at the time of the accident.

1. The principal question involved in this appeal whether the financer of the vehicle would be liable to pay the amount of compensation for the death of driver - cum - owner of the vehicle.

2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Claim Case No. 6/2001 by which the liability to pay amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, has been fastened on the appellant / financer of the vehicle.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
(3.1) The respondents / claimants being legal representatives of deceased Gopal Ram, who died in a motor accident on 27.4.1998, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal stating inter alia that Shri Gopal Ram, while driving the offending vehicle / tractor - trolley (unregistered), owned and being driven by himself, suffered death. It was further pleaded that the said vehicle was purchased by Shri Gopal Ram after obtaining loan from the appellant / society. It was also pleaded that the appellant society had undertaken to get the vehicle insured but they did not get the vehicle insured. It was finally pleaded that they are entitled to get Rs.9,02,000/- as compensation for the death of Shri Gopal Ram from appellant / Society.
(3.2) The appellant / society filed written statement before the claims Tribunal pleading inter alia that the appellant / society is only a financial institution and loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was granted to Shri Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor - trolley pursuant to the application made by him. It was further pleaded that being financer of the vehicle they are not liable to make compensation.
(3.3) The claimants / respondents examined claimant No.1 Thibli Bai in which she has deposed that the offending vehicle (tractor - trolley) was owned by her husband Shri Gopal Ram and he died in an accident arising out the use of said tractor - trolley. She has also stated that an application was also made before the appellant / society vide Ex.D / 1 for handing over that tractor and trolley to her son Vijay Kumar and he will pay the loan amount. She also deposed that the application Ex.D / 2 was filed before the Collector Surguja for permission to run the tractor and trolley so that she may pay the balance loan amount.
(3.4) The appellant / society examined Shri Namdeo Pavnikar (NAW - 1). He has deposed that pursuant to the application D / 3 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was granted as loan to deceased Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor - trolley and the agreement Ex.D / 4 was also executed before the appellant / society. He further deposed that the tractor - trolley was owned by Gopal Ram and the said tractor was purchased upon grant of sanction through M.P. Agro Industries.
(3.5) Learned Claims Tribunal by its award dated 30.7.2002, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable for the death of Shri Gopal Ram and the appellant / society is responsible for payment of compensation and directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/-.

4. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant / society would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that the appellant being financer would be liable to make payment of compensation because admittedly, the deceased himself was owner - cum - driver of the vehicle and therefore the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant / financer of the vehicle.

5. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, assisted by Shri Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants would submi