JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The principal question involved in this appeal whether the financer of the vehicle would be liable to pay the amount of compensation for the death of driver-cum-owner of the vehicle. 2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Claim Case No. 6/2001 by which the liability to pay amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, has been fastened on the appellant/financer of the vehicle. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: 3.1. The respondents/claimants being legal representatives of deceased Gopal Ram, who died in a motor accident on 27.4.1998, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal stating inter alia that Shri Gopal Ram, while driving the offending vehicle/tractor-trolley (unregistered), owned and being driven by himself, suffered death. It was further pleaded that the said vehicle was purchased by Shri Gopal Ram after obtaining loan from the appellant/society. It was also pleaded that the appellant society had undertaken to get the vehicle insured but they did not get the vehicle insured. It was finally pleaded that they are entitled to get Rs. 9,02,000/- as compensation for the death of Shri Gopal Ram from appellant/Society. 3.2. The appellant/ society filed written statement before the Claims Tribunal pleading inter alia that the appellant/society is only a financial institution and loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was granted to Shri Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley pursuant to the application made by him. It was further pleaded that being financer of the vehicle they are not liable to make compensation. 3.3. The claimants/respondents examined claimant No. 1 Thibli Bai in which she has deposed that the offending vehicle (tractor - trolley) was owned by her husband Shri Gopal Ram and he died in an accident arising out the use of said tractor - trolley. She has also stated that an application was also made before the appellant/society vide Ex. D/1 for handing over that tractor and trolley to her son Vijay Kumar and he will pay the loan amount. She also deposed that the application Ex. D/2 was filed before the Collector Surguja for permission to run the tractor and trolley so that she may pay the balance loan amount. 3.4. The appellant/society examined Shri Namdeo Pavnikar (NAW-1). D/1 for handing over that tractor and trolley to her son Vijay Kumar and he will pay the loan amount. She also deposed that the application Ex. D/2 was filed before the Collector Surguja for permission to run the tractor and trolley so that she may pay the balance loan amount. 3.4. The appellant/society examined Shri Namdeo Pavnikar (NAW-1). He has deposed that pursuant to the application D/3 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was granted as loan to deceased Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor- trolley and the agreement Ex. D/4 was also executed before the appellant/society. He further deposed that the tractor-trolley was owned by Gopal Ram and the said tractor was purchased upon grant of sanction through M.P. Agro Industries. 3.5. Learned Claims Tribunal by its award dated 30.7.2002, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable for the death of Shri Gopal Ram and the appellant/society is responsible for payment of compensation and directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000/-. 4. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant/society would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that the appellant being financer would be liable to make payment of compensation because admittedly, the deceased himself was owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and therefore the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant/financer of the vehicle. 5. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, assisted by Shri Malay Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/society in view of Clause 4 and Clause 6 of the Hire Purchase Agreement (Ex. D/4) and therefore the appeal has no force and liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein and perused the record. 7. A bare perusal of the claim application, particularly paras 5, 10 and 15, would show that the claimants themselves have clearly mentioned and admitted in the application under section 166 of the Act, 1988 that the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle and not only the owner of the vehicle but also driving himself on the date of accident i.e., 27.4.1998. They have also mentioned in paras 15 and 22 (b) of the application, that deceased Gopal Ram had obtained a loan and he had purchased the tractor and trolley and formalities for grant of loan was completed by the appellant/society. The matter did not stop here. The claimant No. 1 Thiblibai appeared before the Claims Tribunal and she deposed that the owner of the vehicle was her husband Gopal Ram and the tractor was owned by her husband, who died in an accident arising out of the use of the vehicle. He also made application before the competent authority of the appellant/financer for release of the vehicle vide Ex. D/1. 8. Shri Namdeo Pavnikar (N.A.W. 1) witness of the appellant/society has clearly deposed before the Court that the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was financed to Late Shri Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley by way of loan and vide application (Ex. D/1) made by Gopal Ram, an agreement was executed between them and he was the owner of the tractor trolley on the date of accident. Thus there is overwhelming evidence on record to hold that deceased Gopal Ram himself was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and while driving the same he suffered accident in which he sustained injury and died. Thus, deceased Gopal Ram himself was the owner and driver on the date of accident. 9. There is also sufficient evidence on record to hold that the appellant/Society was only a financer of the vehicle as the loan of 2,00,000/- (2 Lakh) was financed to deceased Gopal Ram for purchase of tractor-trolley by way of loan and after purchasing of the said tractor and trolley it was handed over to the deceased Gopal Ram, as such the capacity of the appellant/society was only of a financer of the vehicle and beyond that nothing more. Therefore, for the death or bodily injuries suffered by owner Shri Gopal Ram no liability can be fastened on the financer/appellant. 10. The Supreme Court in a decision in Godavari Finance Company v. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others, (2008) 5 SCC 107 has held that in case motorcycle, which is subjected to hire purchase agreement financer cannot, ordinarily be treated as owner. The person, who is in possession of the vehicle and not the financer being the owner, would be liable to pay the damages for the motor vehicle. The person, who is in possession of the vehicle and not the financer being the owner, would be liable to pay the damages for the motor vehicle. In that case, the appellant admittedly was the financer of the vehicle, as the vehicle was the subject-matter of hire- purchase agreement and the appellant's name was mentioned in the registration book, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 11. In the present case, the deceased being in possession of the vehicle as owner of the vehicle therefore the appellant/society cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 12. Having regard to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid case and applying the ratio of the aforesaid case, it is held that the appellant being only financer of the offending vehicle, therefore, the appellant/society cannot be held liable to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram (owner of the vehicle). 13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant/financer deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by the claimants is hereby dismissed. However, the claimants would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law to file application, if permissible and dismissal of the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not be a bar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.