JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr. Kaushal S.Jani and Mr. Dhruvik K.Patel learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally today. Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. Mr. Jigar D.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners are the claimants in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.108 of 2019 filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad, challenging the order, below Exhibit-17, filed by respondent no.3 – Indusind Bank praying to delete it as a party to the matter, which came to be allowed vide order dated 31.07.2021. 3. Exhibit-17 was moved by the respondent no.3 – Indusind Bank under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) stating that Bank is not owner of the vehicle and they have hypothecated the vehicle - Ashok Leyland Company’s Dalu bearing no.GJ-27-X-1398, which was involved in the accident. It was urged before the Tribunal that the ownership and control of the vehicle was with respondent nos.1 and 2. 3.1 The learned Tribunal had made the observation that respondent no.3 had sanctioned the loan for purchasing of the vehicle involved in the accident for respondent no.2 and because of the said reason it was hypothecated by them and thus relying on the observation made in the case of Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad Vs. Rabari Bachubhai Hirabhai, reported in (1986) 1 GLR 144 , the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent no.3 cannot be held liable for payment of damage, as they are not necessary party to the claim petition. 3.2 The learned Tribunal distinguished the case relied upon by the contesting party of Madras High Court in the case of K.Ramalingam Vs. Parvathi, Minor Deivayanai, on the ground that the State Bank of India was liable to give compensation as they have failed to pay the insurance amount to the Insurance Company within stipulated time; while in the present matter it was nowhere stated that respondent no.3 has responsibility to pay the insurance of the vehicle. 4. Parvathi, Minor Deivayanai, on the ground that the State Bank of India was liable to give compensation as they have failed to pay the insurance amount to the Insurance Company within stipulated time; while in the present matter it was nowhere stated that respondent no.3 has responsibility to pay the insurance of the vehicle. 4. It appears from the order impugned that the learned Tribunal has only reproduced the observations in the case of Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad (supra), while the Tribunal has not even perused the loan agreement of Indusind Bank with the borrower, thus, under what premise the learned Tribunal come to the conclusion that, it was nowhere stated that Bank has responsibility of payment of insurance of the vehicle, becomes questionable. 4.1 In the context, Advocate Mr. Dhruvik K.Patel for the respondent no.3 - Indusind Bank filed a copy of the loan agreement for the perusal of this Court. 5. Mr. Jigar D.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the respondent no.2 is the owner and the vehicle was under loan agreement sanctioned by the respondent no.3 – Indusing Bank and the vehicle was hypothecated in accordance to the stipulations laid down in the loan agreement. 5.1 Mr. Dave further stated that learned Tribunal prior to deleting the Bank as a party respondent, ought to have perused the loan agreement to consider the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in connection with hypothecated vehicle and ought not to have allowed the application by prematurely deleting the Bank from cause title. 5.2 Mr. Dave stated that it was the duty of the Bank to direct the purchaser to insure the vehicle, and check the insurance policy of the said vehicle annually, further the Bank would have no ground to say that it is not a necessary party as, the Bank is vicariously liable for damage and compensation; thus prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exhibit-17 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.108 of 2019. 6. Mr. Kaushal S.Jani, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submits that, the relation between the Bank and the owner of the vehicle would be governed by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Mr. Jani referred to certain stipulations of the agreement and also the second schedule which is under head of ‘schedule of repayment’. 7. 6. Mr. Kaushal S.Jani, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submits that, the relation between the Bank and the owner of the vehicle would be governed by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Mr. Jani referred to certain stipulations of the agreement and also the second schedule which is under head of ‘schedule of repayment’. 7. Countering the same, Advocate Mr. Kalpesh R.Patel by placing reliance on the judgment of HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Reshma And Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 , submitted that now it is a established law that person in possession of vehicle under hypothecation agreement be treated as owner; and if the vehicle is insured, insurer is bound to indemnify unless there is violation of terms of policy under which insurer can seek exoneration. Mr. Patel submitted that if borrower failed to insure the vehicle, this, by itself would not make financier liable to pay compensation for accident caused by the financed motor vehicle. He submitted that terms in hypothecation agreement does not convey that the financier had become owner and was in control and possession of the vehicle; and thus submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the application and deleted the Bank from the cause title, as no liability would fall upon the Bank. 8. The stipulations as laid down in Para-13 under the head of ‘Insurance and Maintenance’ disclosed the fact that borrower was solely liable to obtain necessary insurance to cover all the risk while at the same time it has been laid down that the lender is not responsible for insuring the vehicle; and further it has been noted down that, if the lender has incurred costs for taking / renewing insurance, the same shall be reimbursed by the borrower to the lender. It has also been stipulated that, borrower is conscious, that at his request the Advance Insurance Premium amount is collected as a part of the EMI and kept in as interest free advance amount, for renewal of insurance policy. Stipulation 13.3 under the head of ‘Insurance and Maintenance’, reads as under: “The Borrower is conscious that at his request the Advance Insurance Premium amount is collected as a part of the EMI and kept in as an interest free advance amount, for renewal of Insurance policy. Stipulation 13.3 under the head of ‘Insurance and Maintenance’, reads as under: “The Borrower is conscious that at his request the Advance Insurance Premium amount is collected as a part of the EMI and kept in as an interest free advance amount, for renewal of Insurance policy. The lender may at its sole discretion as a facilitator get the Insurance done or renew the existing Insurance cover on behalf of the Borrower, by remitting to the approved Insurance company the premiums if collected. The responsibility for effecting Insurance always lies with the Borrower and that the Borrower shall always ensure that the Insurance is renewed periodically irrespective of the fact whether the premium has been paid / or not. If the Insurance has been renewed by the Borrower the Insurance amount if any collected as part of Installment/EMI/SI shall be credited to the account of the Borrower or adjusted in the final settlement at the discretion of the Lender.” The Borrower shall during the subsistence of the Loan Agreement produce the renewed policy copies to the Lender within two (2) working days from the date of expiry of the previous insurance policy. If the Borrower fails to submit the renewed Insurance policy within the said stipulated time, the Lender may obtain Insurance cover/policy, as per terms, from an approved Insurance company and debit the premium amount to the loan account of the Borrower under due intimation. The Borrower further undertakes to produce the vehicle for inspection, if required by the Lender for such purpose. As and when any claim arises under the policy the Borrower shall immediately do the following in order to enable speedy processing of the Insurance claim. 1. Intimate the concerned Insurance company and also the Lender about the cause/accident that has given rise to the claim. 2. Ensure that the spot survey of the Asset is conducted by the Insurance Company. 3. Submit the Claim application with relevant Documents like Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Driver’s License, Permit, Copy of Insurance policy etc. 4. Ensure that the final survey of the vehicle is conducted. 5. Ensure that Re-inspection is conducted to confirm that the vehicle is roadworthy. 6. Ensure that the spot survey of the Asset is conducted by the Insurance Company. 3. Submit the Claim application with relevant Documents like Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Driver’s License, Permit, Copy of Insurance policy etc. 4. Ensure that the final survey of the vehicle is conducted. 5. Ensure that Re-inspection is conducted to confirm that the vehicle is roadworthy. 6. Ensure that the original bills are submitted for processing of the claim and shall fully cooperate with the Lender for processing of the claim and realization of the claim amount by the Lender, during the currency of the Agreement for appropriating the claim against the dues payable by the Borrower.” 9. The interpretation of the conditions would be required to be done by the Tribunal concerned, during the course of trial. The Bank is required to produce the loan agreement on record for deciding the facts whether Bank could be saddled with the liability in view of loan agreement between the parties. 9.1 This Court, at this juncture, during the challenge to the order of deleting the parties, would have no authority to interpret the contractual terms between the parties; it is for the Tribunal to consider the same. In absence of loan agreement produced before the Tribunal concerned, it was erroneous to have deleted the Bank from the array of necessary party. Thus, it would become necessary for the Tribunal concerned while passing the final judgment/award to find out the liability of the person who were involved in use of the vehicle or the person so vicariously liable. 10. Here, in the present case, whether the Bank in terms of agreement would be termed as an owner of the vehicle, which is to be compulsorily insured, so far as third party is concerned as contemplated under section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act and would be made liable to compensate the claimants for the accident caused by the driver, would be a question of fact, which is required to be decided by the Tribunal while interpreting the terms and conditions, which this Court considers that it would be in accordance to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. 11. In view of the above observations and reasons, the present petition is allowed. 11. In view of the above observations and reasons, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 31.07.2021 passed below Exhibit-17 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.108 of 2019 filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the Indusind Bank be again added in the cause title and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law on merits, with opportunities to all the parties concerned to adduce evidence on record.