- (1.) THE instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner finance company challenging the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No.3/2009 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.36/2008 has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been given the interim custody of vehicle Truck No.RJ30 G- 508 on supardginama upon its giving an undertaking that the petitioner shall be burdened with the liability accruing with any claim in relation to the accident as if it was registered owner thereof.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner company financed the vehicle to one Bhanwar Lal. Whilst being in custody of Bhanwar Lal, the vehicle met with an accident and a man died in the accident. The vehicle was seized in connection with the F.I.R. filed for the accident. The installments were thereafter not paid by Bhanwar Lal on which the petitioner moved an application in the court of Magistrate where Bhanwar Lal was facing trial, praying that the vehicle be given on supardginama to the petitioner company as it was put to undue loss because of the vehicle being lying in the police station. The application was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur vide order dated 10.2.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner moved revision and the learned revisional court accepted the revision but at the same time, directed the petitioner be given the interim custody of vehicle no.RJ30 G-508 on supardginama upon its giving an undertaking that the petitioner shall be burdened with the liability accruing with any claim in relation to the accident as if it was registered owner thereof. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner company before the learned revisional court that the petitioner be permitted to utilise the vehicle by letting it out or hiring it, was also accepted but subject to the petitioner giving the aforesaid undertaking. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance Company vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma reported in AIR 2008 SC 2493 submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that the financier is not responsible to pay compensation in the event of the accident of the vehicle. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the owner of the vehicle who was in possession thereof is only the person who can be subjected to the liability towards accident. He submits that in a case of motor vehicle which is purchased on hire purchase basis, the finance company cannot be treated to be an owner and only the person who in possession of the vehicle and not the financier, would be liable to pay the damages of an accident. He also submits that as admittedly the petitioner was not the person in possession of the vehicle when the incident took place, the direction issued to it for furnishing the undertaking that it shall owe liability towards the compensation amount, if any, in relation to the accident which had occurred earlier, cannot be said to be justified. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the order passed by the learned revisional court deserves to be modified and the direction issued that the vehicle Truck No.RJ30 G-508 shall be given to the petitioner on supardginama on its submitting an undertaking that it shall owe responsibility of the motor accident claim regarding the accident which had already taken place, is hereby quashed. Now the vehicle Truck No.RJ30 G-508 shall be given to the petitioner on supardginama on the usual terms and conditions. The instant misc. petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.;