JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.E. Khan for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Sri Jitendra Narain Misra has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 8. 2. Affidavit of publication of notice on 8.9.2016 for service of this F.A.F.O upon respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in terms of order dated 13.7.2016 has been placed on record. Despite publication of notice in the newspapers respondent Nos. 7 and 9 have neither appeared in person nor through counsel. 3. Sri Jitendra Narain Misra has, however, put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 8. Notice to respondent Nos. 7 and 9 is thus, deemed sufficient. 4. This FAFO filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has questioned the correctness of judgement/award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 376 of 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,22,000/- fixing liability upon the appellant jointly and severally to the extent of whole amount. The vehicle was not insured as such insurance company stands exonerated of the liability. 5. The impugned award has been challenged only by appellant whose liability has been fixed being in possession of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time allegedly under an agreement. The indolent owner has not filed any appeal against the impugned award nor did he appear before the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued on issue No. 1 in particular, which essentially was framed to adjudge his liability. The issue was, as to whether on the date of accident i.e. 21.4.2005, the offending vehicle was operated by the appellant under an agreement, if yes, then its effect. 7. The claim petition in paragraph 23 stated that Vikram Tempo No. UP 32 T 7249, on the date of accident, was engaged in the business operation of appellant in the city of Lucknow which had its registered office at 22, Jopling Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The plea set out in paragraph 23 of the claim petition was denied by appellant in paragraphs 24, 37 and 38 of the written statement. The plea set out in paragraph 23 of the claim petition was denied by appellant in paragraphs 24, 37 and 38 of the written statement. It appears that in order to test the correctness of averments made in paragraph 23 of the claim petition, the Tribunal passed an order on 1.5.2008 directing production of the vehicle movement register and the register relating to payments as well as the agreement in relation to the offending vehicle. The order passed by the Tribunal on 1.5.2008 was complied with by placing on record a photostat copy of the agreement in relation to the offending vehicle as well as photocopy of vehicle movement register for the period 1.3.2003 to 31.5.2003. In the light of documentary evidence available on record, learned counsel for the appellant invited attention of this Court to the specific finding recorded by the Tribunal where it is said that the appellant having failed to produce any record beyond 15th April, 2003, thus, suppressed the relevant evidence, hence the liability. It was argued that the Tribunal by making such an observation clearly fell into an error once the relevant record of vehicle movement register was made available up to 31.5.2003. The submission put forth was carefully analyzed in the light of material placed on record. It is seen that photocopy of the agreement between the appellant and the owner i.e. respondent No. 2 placed on record indicates that the offending vehicle had come in the operation of appellant under an agreement. Insofar as the operation of vehicle as on 21.4.2003 is concerned, there is no specific denial in the written statement by making a mention to the agreement and date of its validity. If any agreement between the appellant and owner of the offending vehicle had overrun its validity period as on the date of accident, there was no reason as to why such a fact would not find mention in para-24 of the written statement. The denial of liability in paragraphs 37 and 38 also does not make a mention of the agreement which existed between appellant and owner of the vehicle. This clearly goes to indicate that the appellant had not set up a case on the strength of agreement of which a photocopy was filed and the invalidity whereof ought to have been proved on the strength of evidence. This clearly goes to indicate that the appellant had not set up a case on the strength of agreement of which a photocopy was filed and the invalidity whereof ought to have been proved on the strength of evidence. The agreement placed on record, however, gives a sufficient indication for this Court to draw an adverse inference due to the reason that the agreement does not bear date of its commencement in the opening para. It is further gathered that the addition of period of validity in the relevant paragraph is handwritten whereas rest of the paragraphs drawing the agreement valid for a period of eleven months extendable for a further period of three months would make the sense complete. The addition in handwriting restricting the operation of agreement is suspicious. The date mentioned at the foot of the agreement is not clear as to its validity which reflects nothing but an evasive attempt on the part of appellant. 8. The agreement having been filed by the appellant alongwith an affidavit shows that there was a contract between the appellant and the owner whereunder possession of the vehicle vested in the appellant as on the date of accident. The appellant had also placed on record a photocopy of the Vehicle Movement Register which was handwritten but photocopy of the document which contains a resembling number of the vehicle involved was not found admissible and was also not proved by the appellant. Objection as regards the possession of the vehicle under a contract in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be disbelieved even if the finding recorded by the Tribunal is found to be erroneous. This Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is competent to record a finding of fact having regard to the material available on record. Once possession of the offending vehicle is found to be vested in the appellant on the date of accident and the view taken is supported by the Apex Court decision rendered in the case Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatio v. Kulsum and others, (2011) 8 SCC 142 , the question that crops up is as to the extent of liability that can be fixed upon the appellant. 9 From the perusal of agreement it is further evident that the appellant has secured liability on his part by incorporating an indemnity clause in respect of the negligent acts of the driver plying the vehicle. Thus, it is open to the appellant to claim from the owner any loss that would arise out of negligent acts of the driver. As regards fixation of liability, Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides as under: “168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.—On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct. 10. A plain reading of Section 168 of the Act would reveal that owner of the offending vehicle, driver or insurer are to be fastened with liability in relation to an accident arising out of negligent driving. 10. A plain reading of Section 168 of the Act would reveal that owner of the offending vehicle, driver or insurer are to be fastened with liability in relation to an accident arising out of negligent driving. The term ‘owner’ is defined under Section 2 (30) of the Act as under: “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 11. Once the definition of owner is extended to the person in possession of a vehicle under an agreement, the liability of the appellant within the ambit of statute in its entirety becomes unquestionable. The observation made by the Tribunal that only 50% of the liability deserves to be fixed on the appellant is against the spirit of statutory intent and its import. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability in its entirety upon the appellant, therefore, the liability fixed jointly and severally is to be understood against the appellant alone who shall be at liberty to recover the same from the registered owner as per the agreement which issue is certainly not within the scope of present appeal. The appellant did not argue any other ground. 12. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before this Court in addition to the statutory deposit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant being bereft of any merit, deserves to be rejected and the findings recorded by the Tribunal consistent with this judgement stand affirmed. The amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal for being released in favour of the claimants as per the terms of award. The residual amount shall also be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from today subject, however, that no findings recorded by this Court shall prejudice the recovery rights of the appellants from the owner in respect of the offending vehicle. The FAFO is rejected.