J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant India Lease Development Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 04.01.2011 whereby a compensation of ‘7,41,000/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 5.

2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:

i) The Appellant was the financier and lessor of Vehicle No.DL-2CB-2575 leased to the Seventh Respondent (Anil Kumar). According to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act where a vehicle is subject to Hire Purchase Agreement or an Agreement of Lease, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is liable as owner thereof and not the Financier.

ii) The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler without wearing any helmet. Therefore, the deceased has contributed to the accident and his consequent death.

iii) There was clerical mistake in the computation of loss of dependency as the Claims Tribunal, on account of clerical mistake, took the same as ‘2,719/- and rounded it off to ‘2,750/- instead of ‘ 2,179/- to calculate the total loss of dependency.

iv) The Appellant moved an application to implead Vijay Kumar as he had obtained the vehicle on superdari and was in actual possession of the vehicle. He was liable being the rightful owner of the offending vehicle; the Claim Petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

3. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim, make an award determining just compensation and specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. The Claims Tribunal is under an obligation to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or the driver of the vehicle. The term “owner” is defined under Section 2(30) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:

”(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;“

4. A bare reading of the provision shows that in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation etc., the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would deem to be the owner of the vehicle. The Appellant proved on record an Agreement of Lease Ex.R4W1/2, through its authorized representative Yogesh Kumar, which was valid for a period of two years. Yogesh Kumar testified that the Seventh Respondent(Anil Kumar) defaulted in payment of installments and ultimately made payment of all outstanding lease charges and approached the Appellant for transfer of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority in his name. He deposed that the Appellant issued a sale letter dated 16.08.1995, also signed Form 29 and 30 and recorded the transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle as per the Motor Vehicles Act. He deposed that the Seventh Respondent (Anil Kumar) assured the Appellant that he would take necessary steps for effecting transfer of the vehicle in the records of the registering authority. Thus, it is evident that the lease agreement was no longer subsisting between the Appellant and the Seventh Respondent.

Admittedly, the vehicle stood registered in Appellant’s name. Even if it is assumed that the Appellant executed documents for transfer of the vehicle, yet no information was sent to the registering authority within a period of 14 days as provided under Section 50 of the Act. Section 50 (i) is extracted hereunder:

”50. Transfer of ownership-(1) ………..

(a)………

(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and s