RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS Vs. ONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.8.1989, by which directions were given by the Tribunal for payment of Rs. 7,500/ - as no fault liability amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is an admitted position that the registered owner is Chiranji Lal. It is also an admitted position that Chiranji Lal has given this bus to run on a route on which the present petitioner R.S.R.T.C. is having a permit on the contract basis.

(2.) THE contention of the R.S.R.T.C. is that Corporation is not the owner of the vehicle and, as such, the liability for the no fault amount under Section 140 cannot be fastened on the present petitioner. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads 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.

(3.) SECTION 66 of the Act provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place, but the person using the vehicle shall use it in accordance with the conditions under which the permit is granted. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle which has been taken on contract is running on the route of which the permit has been granted in favour of the R.S.R.T.C. Thus the running of a vehicle on a permit granted to R.S.R.T.C. squarely shows that the vehicle is in possession of the R.S.R.T.C. for the purpose of running on the route and for the purpose of taking on hire the passengers for travel. Conductors are also employed by R.S.R.T.C.