Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed by Northern Coalfields Ltd. (NCL)aggrieved by award dated 25. 9. 2006 passed in Claim Case No. 47 of 2006 by the addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, waidhan, District Sidhi. ( 2. ) CLAIM petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, Yeshwant singh, claiming compensation on account of his death in an accident dated 18. 11. 2004 when dumper owned by NCL driven by bhagwan Das Sahu dashed the jeep No. UP 66-B 4495. Yeshwant Singh, driver of the jeep, sustained injuries and died in the accident. Deceased was having licence to drive a jeep. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was claimed by the claimants. Age of the deceased was 19 years. He used to receive a sum of Rs. 6,600 per month. ( 3. ) NCL, its Regional Security Officer and Dy. Chief Engineer in their written statement contended that the accident was the outcome of negligence of Yeshwant singh, driver of the jeep who dashed the dumper, due to which he sustained injuries and died. Dumper was not a motor vehicle, it was plied in mines area. There was no red flag fitted on the jeep plied by the deceased. He was also not having licence to drive. It was driven in violation of the security rules applicable as per the Mines act. ( 4. ) DRIVER of the dumper in his written statement took the plea that he was not driving the dumper. Dumper was stationary in the parking yard as there was breakdown of the dumper No. 134. ( 5. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of dumper by the respondent No. 3, Bhagwan Das Sahu. Driver of the jeep was not negligent in any manner. Deceased was having licence to drive the jeep. Compensation of Rs. 2,70,800 has been ordered to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum w. e. f. date of filing claim petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal has been preferred by the NCL and others. ( 6. ) MR. P. S. Nair, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Ms. Tulika Sharma, has submitted that the jeep was on hire and was plied under an agreement with the NCL. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal has been preferred by the NCL and others. ( 6. ) MR. P. S. Nair, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Ms. Tulika Sharma, has submitted that the jeep was on hire and was plied under an agreement with the NCL. Clause 6 of the agreement provided with respect to wages/compensation as given in various labour laws. Any compensation on account of accident to driver or the vehicle will be payable by the owner of the jeep as per the Workmens Compensation Act/ mines Act, 1957. Thus, the appellants have been illegally held to be liable to make payment of compensation. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I find absolutely no merit in the submissions raised. Firstly, it is a case where the dumper owned by NCL dashed against the jeep. Driver of NCL was responsible for causing the accident. He drove the dumper in a rash and negligent manner, that was the cause of accident. In the accident the deceased sustained injuries and died. The driver of the jeep was not negligent in any manner. Thus, clause 6 of the agreement or lease agreement of jeep that has been relied upon by appellants does not come into play. Clause 6 is quoted below: "6. Statutory Obligations/compensation: The contractor will be responsible for meeting all statutory obligation with regard to registration of vehicle, road permit, driving licence, insurance, etc. and also with regard to the payment of wages, bonus, overtime, PF, gratuity compensation as given in various labour laws. Any compensation on account of accident to driver or the vehicle will be payable by you as per Workmens compensation Act/mines Act, 1957. In order to identify a private vehicle it is decided that your vehicle should carry a placard clearly on its front glass as on NCL DUDHICHUA DUTY in bold letters. " ( 8. ) AS it is a case of a vehicle owned by ncl responsible for accident and driver of the dumper was negligent, by no stretch of imagination liability could have been fastened under the Motor Vehicles Act for the tortious act of the driver of NCL on the owner of the jeep or its insurer. ( 9. ) EVEN otherwise, it is open to the claimant to recover the compensation from owner as defined under section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 9. ) EVEN otherwise, it is open to the claimant to recover the compensation from owner as defined under section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Owner has been defined in section 2 (30) thus: " 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;" Person having possession of the vehicle under an agreement is considered to be an owner of the vehicle for the purpose of motor Vehicles Act, though the actual owner of jeep cannot be held liable in the accident as driver of jeep was not negligent, the recovery could have been made from a owner in possession as provided under section 2 (30 ). Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.