Reverting back to the facts of present case, admittedly, on the date of accident offending vehicle stood in the name of respondent No. 1, in the record of registration. Though respondent No. 1 has claimed that he has sold the vehicle to respondent No. 3 but he remained as registered owner thereof. As such, the present case is not covered by three exceptions provided by Section 2(30). The judgment in case of Naveen Kumar (supra) therefore squarely applies to the present case. The judgment and the issue in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport (supra) deals with the different facts, whether the hirer in possession and control of the vehicle was to be treated as owner. In view of definition of owner under Section 2(30) of the Act, the said observations are made and the person who was the hirer in possession and control of the vehicle was also held vicariously liable. In respectful view of this Court, the said judgment has no application to the present case. Since respondent No. 3 is not registered owner of the offending vehicle as contemplated by Section 2(3) of the Act by following judgment in case of Naveen Kumar (supra), liability to pay compensation under MV Act cannot be fastened on him and the claim would not be tenable against him. As such, the impugned award deserves interference to that extent.
