BIMALCHAND Vs. RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. A. No. 869 of 1987 is against the order dated 15. 4. 1987 made in O. P. No. 981 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Madras, awarding a sum of Rs. 59,000 against respondents 1 and 2 for the death of one Annamalai in a motor vehicle accident of 19. 6. 1984.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 1954 of 1986 arises out of an order dated 21. 1. 1986 in M. P. No. 1563 of 1984 in O. P. No. 981 of 1984 directing the first respondent therein to pay a sum of R s. 15,000 as compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 for the death of the same person mentioned above in the above said accident.

(3.) IN L. I. C. of INdia v. Raj Kumari Mittal , 1985 ACJ 179, a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view. After considering the definition of owner contained in Sections 2 (19) of the Act, the learned Judges of the Allahaba d High Court have held as follows:- "it is obvious that the legislature in its wisdom confined the ownership of a vehicle under hire purchase agreement to the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. It has done away with the reality of ownership under a hire purchase agreement. "