Motor Vehicles Act,1988; Section 2(30)-‘Owner’ of a vehicle is not limited to the categories specified in Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act. If the context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation. (Para 19) [In this case, two employees of M/s. Hindustan Motors took the vehicle from M/s Vaibhav Motors (the dealer) for a test drive. None of the employees of the dealer was present in the vehicle. Rather, at the time of accident, the driver and the copassenger of that vehicle were employees of M/s. Hindustan Motors. There is nothing on record to suggest that the dealer had the authority to deny those two persons permission to take the vehicle for a test drive. More so, when they were representatives of the owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances, we can safely conclude that at the time of accident the vehicle was not only under the ownership of M/s. Hindustan Motors but also under its control and command through its employees. Therefore, in our view, the appellant, being just a dealer of M/s Hindustan Motors, was not liable for compensation as an owner of the vehicle.]
Code Of Civil Procedure,1908; Order 41 Rule 33 -For exercise of the power under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice; and one of the limitations on exercise of the power is that that part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against, or objected to, by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party – Referred to Banarasi & Ors. V. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606. (Para 29-32)