ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. While deciding the appeal filed by the Financer assailing award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and its liability towards payment of compensation, learned Single Judge noticed that the view taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.439/2002-Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Vs. Smt. Prem & Ors., appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Finance Company Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 107 as also a subsequent authoritative pronouncement in the case of HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Reshma & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 . Accordingly, following questions have been referred for being answered:- “(i) Whether the order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 439/2002 has been passed in ignorance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godawari Finance Company (Supra) and the provisions contained under Sections 146 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988? (ii) Whether this appeal can be decided in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Reshma (Supra) by taking a contrary view, to the view taken by the Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2012 while deciding SBCMA No. 439/2002 against the same impugned judgment and award dated 10.08.2000 which has attained the finality?” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Financer would submit that the view taken by a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Limited (supra) is per incuriam, as it runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Finance Company (supra). Which is law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and binding on all Courts. Which is law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and binding on all Courts. The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that even subsequently, a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (supra) has reiterated the aforesaid legal position, as enumerated in the case of Godavari Finance Company (supra), that in case of hire-purchase agreement, the financer is ordinarily not to be treated as owner and it is the person who is in the possession and control of the vehicle and not the financer who would be liable to pay damage for the motor accident. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.439/2002-Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Vs. Smt. Prem & Ors., vide order dated 11.04.2012, upheld the award fastening liability on the financer/appellant. It was held as below:- “……….Appellant did not care to contest the matter. After such a length of time, appellant has for the first time raised the arguments before this court. Even if, scooter was sold on higher purchase basis, registration certificate of vehicle was still in name of appellant and if vehicle was not insured, it cannot escape of its liability for making payment of compensation………….” The learned Single Judge was of the view that even if vehicle was sold on hire-purchase basis as registration of the vehicle was still in the name of Financer/appellant therein, if the vehicle was not insured, it cannot escape from its liability for making payment of compensation. 5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Finance Company (supra) was dealing with an issue regarding liability of financer in case of hire-purchase vehicle, wherein name of financer was incorporated in the Registration Book as the owner. That was a case where the owner was a private person and vehicle was purchased by him, financed by the finance company. The vehicle was held under a hire-purchase agreement with the financer w.e.f. 06.02.1995. Though the agreement was later on cancelled on 10.11.1995, in the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.1995. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the financer liable along with the owner of the vehicle, driver and insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of the deceased. Though the agreement was later on cancelled on 10.11.1995, in the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.1995. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the financer liable along with the owner of the vehicle, driver and insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of the deceased. In this factual background, their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of provisions contained in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and various other decisions. It was pertinently held as below:- “13. In case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a hire-purchase agreement, the financer cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financer being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident.” 6. In a subsequent decision in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (supra), the issue was again considered and the legal position, as authoritatively pronounced by their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as below:- “22. In the present case, as the facts have been unfurled, the appellant Bank had financed the owner for purchase of the vehicle and the owner had entered into a hypothecation agreement with the Bank. The borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place. Had the vehicle been insured, the insurance company would have been liable and not the owner. There is no cavil over the fact that the vehicle was the subject of an agreement of hypothecation and was in possession and control of Respondent 2. The High Court has proceeded both in the main judgment as well as in the review that the financier steps into the shoes of the owner. Reliance placed on Kachraji Raymalji, in our considered opinion, was inappropriate because in the instant case all the documents were filed by the Bank. In the said case, the two-Judge Bench of this Court had doubted the relationship between the appellant and the respondent therein from the hire-purchase agreement. Be that as it may, the said case rested on its own facts. In the decision in Kailash Nath Kothari, the Court fastened the liability on the Corporation regard being had to the definition of the 'owner' who was in control and possession of the vehicle. Be that as it may, the said case rested on its own facts. In the decision in Kailash Nath Kothari, the Court fastened the liability on the Corporation regard being had to the definition of the 'owner' who was in control and possession of the vehicle. Similar to the effect is the judgment in Deepa Devi. Be it stated, in the said case the Court ruled that the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and not the registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. In Shakuntala case, the learned Judges distinguished the ratio in Deepa Devi on the ground that it hinged on its special facts and fastened the liability on the insurer. In Kulsum, the principle stated in Kailash Nath Kothari was distinguished and taking note of the fact that at the relevant time, the vehicle in question was insured with it and the policy was very much in force and hence, the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner. 23. On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases, it is found that there is a common thread that the person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner. Needless to emphasise, if the vehicle is insured, the insurer is bound to indemnify unless there is violation of the terms of the policy under which the insurer can seek exoneration. 24. In Purnya Kala Devi, a three-Judge Bench has categorically held that the person in control and possession of the vehicle under an agreement of hypothecation should be construed as the owner and not alone the registered owner and thereafter the Court has adverted to the legislative intention, and ruled that the registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control. There is reference to Section 146 of the Act that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without insurance as that is the mandatory statutory requirement under the 1988 Act. In the instant case, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, Centurion Bank, was the registered owner along with Respondent 2. The Respondent 2 was in control and possession of the vehicle. In the instant case, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, Centurion Bank, was the registered owner along with Respondent 2. The Respondent 2 was in control and possession of the vehicle. He had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the full premium to the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured. The High Court has erroneously opined that the financier had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it. The said term in the hypothecation agreement does not convey that the appellant financier had become the owner and was in control and possession of the vehicle. It was the absolute fault of the Respondent 2 to take the vehicle from the dealer without full payment of the insurance. Nothing has been brought on record that this fact was known to the appellant financier or it was done in collusion with the financier. When the intention of the legislature is quite clear to the effect, a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control and there is evidence on record that the Respondent 2, without the insurance plied the vehicle in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 146 of the 1988 Act, the High Court could not have mulcted the liability on the financier. The appreciation by the learned Single Judge in appeal, both in fact and law, is wholly unsustainable. 25. In view of the aforesaid premises, we allow the appeals and hold that the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, Respondent 2 herein and not that of the financier and accordingly that part of the direction in the award is set aside. However, as has been conceded to by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no steps shall be taken for realisation of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the legal position is no longer res integra and, therefore, the questions referred to are answered as below:- Answer to question No.(i): The order dated 11.04.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.439/2002 is per incuriam and does not lay down the correct legal position being in ignorance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Godavari Finance Company Vs. Appeal No.439/2002 is per incuriam and does not lay down the correct legal position being in ignorance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Godavari Finance Company Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors. and HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Reshma & Ors., wherein it has been held that in case of a hire-purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has to be treated as the owner and the financer cannot be treated to be the owner and, therefore, not liable to pay compensation. Answer to question No.(ii): The appeal, out of which present reference has arisen, and all other appeals are accordingly required to be decided in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Godavari Finance Company Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors. and HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Reshma & Ors. 8. The reference is accordingly answered. 9. The records of the case be now placed before the learned Single Judge for decision of the appeal on its own merits.