JUDGMENT 1. - The only ground raised in this appeal is that the vehicle which was involved in the accident and out of which the claim had arisen, the appellant cannot be considered to be `owner'. According to learned counsel, the Driver who allowed the deceased to board the vehicle unauthorisedly, for the purpose of claim has to be treated as `owner' for award of interim compensation, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He relies on the definition of `owner' given under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988.The definition reads as under:- "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (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;" 2. A bare perusal of the provision leaves no room of doubt that a person in whose name the motor vehicle stand registered is to be treated as `owner'. It also includes a person in possession of the vehicle under an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation or hire-purchase. In no case, a Driver who is in possession of the vehicle as an employee of the owner, can be treated as `owner' for the purposes of fixing liability under Section 140 of the Act. 3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******