JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Judgment and award, dated 17.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Papum pare, Yuipa, in MACT Case No. 01/2017(YPA), is impugned in this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Naharlagun. 2. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned judgment, the learned Member, MACT, Yupia has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only, with interest @ 9% (nine) p.a. from the date of filing the claim-petition i.e. 9th Jan 2017, till realisation of the same. The learned Court below further directed the appellant to pay the awarded amount within a period of 2(two) months from the date of judgment, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12%. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the MAC Case No. 01/2017, before the learned Member, MACT, Yupia is adumbrated herein-below: “On 25.05.2013, one Dwarka Prasad Lakhotia (since deceased) was proceeding from Naharlagun to Guwahati in a Private I10 Magna Car belonging to his wife, namely, Smt. Sunita Devi Lakhotia, bearing Registration No. AR-01-D-5519.Onhis way, he met with an accident at Rangagarah on National Highway-37, under Samaguri Police Station of Nagaon District, Assam. After the accident, he was shifted to BP Civil Hospital, Nagaon, Assam. But, he succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The car was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the policy was enforced at the time of accident. Thereafter, the appellant conducted an enquiry and verification of the damaged car and paid a sum of Rs. 2,97,029/- being the damaged claim amount, as per policy terms and condition. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition in the Court of learned Member, MACT, Yupia, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,31,50,000/- (rupees one crore thirty one lakhs fifty thousand) only from the appellant company. The appellant contested the case by filing a written statement and examined the witnesses and denied its liabilities in respect of the aforesaid MACT case. But after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on 17.06.2015, directing the appellant company to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% till full and final payment of the awarded amount.” 4. But after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on 17.06.2015, directing the appellant company to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% till full and final payment of the awarded amount.” 4. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal on the ground that:- (1) The learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in fact as well as in law while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 17.06.2019 and the claimant has failed to submit all the essential documents in support of the claim such as:- (i) Income certificate of the injured person. (ii) Form 54. (iii) Age prove certificate of the deceased. (iv) Proper medical treatment vouchers and ex-ray plate etc. (v) Charge-sheet of the Criminal case. (2) The learned Tribunal has misconception over the points of law as well as misunderstood the factual matrix of the claim case and that the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and met with an accident and he cannot be considered as a third party and he was not a registered owner of the offending vehicle and as such, the petition under Section 166 of the MV Act 1988 is not maintainable, and consequently, the impugned judgment and award is not maintainable in the eye of law (3) Had the deceased been registered owner of the offending vehicle then his wife or relative could claim a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only under the terms and condition of the Insurance company which was enforced at the time of material time of accident. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801 , the judgment is not maintainable. The accident took place because of his own rash and negligent driving of the deceased person and being the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving his relative cannot maintain a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and as such, the impugned award is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order. 5. The opposite party entered appearance on receipt of notice but has not submitted any affidavit-in-opposition. 6. Heard Mr. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order. 5. The opposite party entered appearance on receipt of notice but has not submitted any affidavit-in-opposition. 6. Heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that the only question to be decided in this appeal is “whether the husband of the appellant/claimant is the registered owner of the vehicle or not.” Mr. Dekahas submitted that the deceased husband of the claimant was not the registered owner of the vehicle as it was registered in the name of the appellant/claimant and in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801 , the claimant is not entitled to any compensation and the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is not maintainable and therefore, contented to set it aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Batt the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased husband of the claimant was the owner of the vehicle and as such, it is contented to maintain the judgment and award of the learned Court below. 8. Having heard the submission of both sides, we have gone through the record carefully. It appears from the record of the learned Court below that while deciding the claim petition, the learned court below has framed as many as 4 issues and while dealing with the issue No. 4 i.e. whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation from the opposite party, the learned court below has dealt with the issue of owner in paragraph No. 41 of the judgment and discussed the definition of owner under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and thereafter, arrived at a conclusion that when the vehicle remains in actual possession and control of any person, other than the registered owner by virtue of any hire-purchase agreement or hypothecation etc. lease or otherwise and the owner of the vehicle ceased to have control over the vehicle, such person remaining in actual possession and control of the vehicle by virtue of lease agreement or otherwise are also embraced by the definition of ‘owner’ of a motor vehicle and thereafter, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801 , directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) being the personal accident coverage from the date of filing the claim petition. 9. It is apposite to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) held that it is an admitted position that “the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question.” The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A claimant in our view cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself might have because the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the Insurance Company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation. 10. In the case in hand, it appears that the vehicle on the relevant date of accident was registered in the name of the deceased’s wife i.e. the claimant of the claim petition, namely, Smt. Sunita Devi Lakhotia. There is no dispute about the same. Viewed from that angle, it cannot be said that the submission made by Mr. U. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit. 11. There is no dispute about the same. Viewed from that angle, it cannot be said that the submission made by Mr. U. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit. 11. In view of terms of the Insurance-coverage, the registered owner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance. However, the learned Court below has held that though the vehicle was not registered in the name of the deceased yet the vehicle was under actual possession and control of the deceased and as such, the definition of ‘owner’ also embrace the deceased here in this case. 12. It is to be mentioned here that Section 2(30) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the term owner as “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. 13. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Musstt Sakila Begum and Others in MAC Application No. 88/2013, this Court, while interpreting the definition of ‘owner’ held that a plain reading of the definition of ‘owner’ in the MV Act would show, that the expression ‘owner’ of motor vehicle, does not necessarily mean the registered owner alone. When a vehicle is in actual possession of any person other than registered owner, by virtue of any agreement for lease or otherwise, such hirer in possession and control of the vehicle is also considered to be owner of the vehicle. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport vs. Kailash Nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3444 , it is further observed that in respect of awarding compensation in reference to an accident by a vehicle hired with driver, the hirer at the time of actual possession and control of the vehicle would fall within the definition of the ‘owner’ and would be vicariously be liable to pay compensation for tort committed by driver, though driver was the employee of the registered owner. 14. 14. It is further held that what therefore, follows from the above discussion is that hirer of a vehicle under agreement of lease or otherwise shall also come within the definition of owner, when such hirer possess the vehicle with full control over it, and the real owner ceases to have any control over the vehicle. Thus, a hirer, to be considered as ‘owner’ by virtue of hiring a vehicle, the following conditions must be satisfied:- (i) The vehicle should be in actual possession and control of the hirer. (ii) The registered owner must not have any control over the vehicle. 15. It may be mentioned here that in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481 , while dealing with the definition of ‘owner’ of a vehicle, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “The definition of owner under Section 2(9) of the Act is not exhaustive. It has, therefore to be construed, in a wider sense, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The expression owner must include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession and control of the vehicle.” It is further held that: “To confine the meaning of ‘owner’ to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident.” 16. In Purnya Kala Devi vs. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 142 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “16.....the High Court, without adverting to Section 5 of the Assam Act, merely on the basis of the definition of “owner” as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act, mulcted the award payable by the owner of the vehicle. The High Court failed to appreciate that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was under the requisition of Respondent 1 State of Assam under the provisions of the Assam Act. Therefore, Respondent 1 was squarely covered under the definition of “owner” as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act. The High Court failed to appreciate that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was under the requisition of Respondent 1 State of Assam under the provisions of the Assam Act. Therefore, Respondent 1 was squarely covered under the definition of “owner” as contained in Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act. The High Court failed to appreciate the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of “owner” a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to the effect that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the “owner” and not alone the registered owner. The High Court further failed to appreciate the legislative intention that the registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle was not in his possession and control...” 17. It is now well settled that while interpreting the provisions under the M.V. Act, always a liberal approach has to be adopted, so that very object of enacting the Act, which is a piece of social welfare legislation, is not defeated. In Bimla Devi vs. Satbir Singh, 2012 (4) SCALE 217 , Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as under:- “The Motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation and has been enacted with intent and object to facilitate the Claimants/Victims to get redress for the loss of family member or for injuries at an early date. In any case, money cannot be any substitute for it, but in the long run it may have some soothing effect. Thus, it is desirable to adopt a more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach in these matters.” 18. In the case in hand, the registered ‘owner’ of the vehicle was Smt. Sunita Devi Lakhotia. Deceased Dwarka Prasad Lakhotia was the husband of the registered owner Smt. Sunita Devi Lakhotia, had taken the vehicle from Naharlagun to Guwahati and on the way he met with an accident at Rangagarah, on the National Highway-37, under the jurisdiction of Samaguri Police Station. The vehicle in question was in his actual possession and under his control. The registered owner had no control over the vehicle at the material point of time. Thus, the two conditions, as stated in United India Insurance Co. The vehicle in question was in his actual possession and under his control. The registered owner had no control over the vehicle at the material point of time. Thus, the two conditions, as stated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Musstt Sakila Begum and Others (supra) having been fulfilled, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased, having hired the vehicle from its registered owner i.e. his wife and thereby he stepped into the shoes of the owner and the owner of the vehicle ceased to have control over the vehicle concerned. 19. Thus, considering the submission of the learned advocates of both the sides and also analysing the facts and circumstances available on the record and keeping in mind the legislative object behind enacting the Act, further considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport (supra) and in Purnya Kala Devi (supra) also by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), it cannot be said that the ld. Member, MACT, Yupia has not committed any error while holding that the deceased was the ‘owner’ of the vehicle in question and thereby, awarding compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant in terms of the insurance policy. 20. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Send down the LCR to the Court below with a copy of this order, immediately.