As per the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purpose of the Act, would be treated as “owner”. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation where the registered owner has purportedto transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of the liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfillment of the object of the law. Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1.
Tag Archives: hypothecation
In a recent Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 71057 of 2011 decided on 09.02.2012, reported in 2012 (3) A.W.C. 2821 it was held as under:
“The bank or financial institution cannot be permitted to take a decision on their own that there has been a default and proceed to take possession of the hypothecated vehicle without giving an opportunity to the borrower to present his case. In this manner, the banks would be judging their own cause with the right of execution, as they themselves would unilaterally determine that there has been a default and proceed to execute their own decision by taking possession of the hypothecated vehicle through their own appointed agencies, which may be muscle men. Adopting such a recourse would clearly be a blatant violation of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In case of default in repayment of its loan, it is always open for the Banks to get the agreement with its borrower enforced through the process of law. Even the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which gives special power to the bank for realization of its dues also provides for certain safeguards. Section 13(2) of the act of 2002 has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2371 that the borrower has a right to submit his reply to the said notice. Pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court, sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 has been inserted making it obligatory on the financial institutions (including banks) to pass an order after considering the reply submitted by the borrower. It is only thereafter that proceedings for taking over possession can be initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002.”