• Vijay Made, S/o Late Dashrath Made, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village v. 1. Dev Pratap Singh, S/o Dheersai, Aged About 28 Years 2. Kriti Singh, D/o
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:22926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 571 of 2020 • Vijay Made, S/o Late Dashrath Made, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kutcharypara, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ( Non - Applicant No. 2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Jeep Bearing Registration No. C G / 16 / Z D ) 0695) --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2 versus 1. Dev Pratap Singh, S/o Dheersai, Aged About 28 Years 2. Kriti Singh, D/o Dev Pratap Singh, Aged About 6 Years Being Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Father Dev Pratap Singh S/o Dheersai, Respondent No. 1) 3. Annu Singh, S/o Dev Pratap Singh, Aged About 1 Years 6 Month, Being Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Father Dev Pratap Singh S/o Dheersai, Respondent No. 1) All R/o Village - Baniyapara ( Anga), Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ----Applicants/ Claimants 4. Sonamani, S/o Ajitram, Aged About 26 Years R/o - Village - Azadnagar Anga, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ( Non- Applicant No. 1) ( Driver Of Vehicle Jeep Bearing Registration No. C G / 16 / Z D ) 0695). --- Non-applicant No. 1 5. The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, Brahamroad, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 3 ) (Insurer Of Vehicle Jeep Bearing Registration No. C G 16 / Z D 0695) ____________________________________________________________ --- Non-applicant No. 3 --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. Appellant/ owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 06.11.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 39/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,26,800/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.01.2019, Smt. Manati Singh along with other co-passengers after attending Annaprasan program was returning from Narsinghpur to Baikunthpur in a motor vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. CG16ZD0695 (offending vehicle). When the Jeep reached on the main road of village Junapara at around 7.30 pm, non-applicant No. 1 drove the offending vehicle negligently and carelessly, took it off from road and hit the house on the side of the road, due to which Smt. Manati Singh suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. In connection of the said accident, crime No. 12/2019 was registered in the police Station Baikunthpur against Non-applicant No. 1 & 2, for alleged offence under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 3/181, 5/180 of the Act of 1988. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3/ applicants who are widower husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Manati Singh filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 17,60,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 28 years of age, was an able bodied person. She was doing labourer and agricultural work 3 / 7 and was earning ₹ 6,000/- per month. Due to untimely death of deceased Manati Singh applicants have suffered adversely. 4. Respondent No. 4 /Non-applicant No. 1 -Driver of the offending vehicle submitted his reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, and pleaded for dismissal of the claim application on the ground that the claim application is filed on the false and baseless grounds. 5. Appellant herein / Non-applicant No. 2/ owner of the offending vehicle filed his reply to the application, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that before the date of accident ie., 16.01.2019, he has sold the offending vehicle on 11.01.2019 to non- applicant No. 1 and also handed over all the documents to him. On the date of accident, the said vehicle was in the possession and ownership of non-applicant No. 1 and as such non-applicant No.2 has no responsibility in relation to the accident caused by the offending vehicle. Non-applicant No.1 has not got it transferred in his name even after purchasing the offending vehicle. Therefore, the name of non-applicant No. 2 is registered in the documents of the offending vehicle as owner. Since non-applicant No.2 has no connection with the offending vehicle on the date of accident, he is not responsible in any manner. 6. Respondent No. 5/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company of the offending vehicle also filed its reply to the application, while denying all the pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that non- applicants no. 1 & 2 have not given any information about the accident to the insurance company, hence the case is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of section 134 (C) of the Act of 1988. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving 4 / 7 license to drive the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle has a seating capacity of only 06 people, whereas on the date of accident, total 12 people were sitting and travelling, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Manati Bai died because of grievous injuries suffered in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,26,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 1/ Resp. No. 4 (driver) and non-applicant No. 2/ appellant-owner jointly and severally. 8. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant because the appellant though was earlier registered owner of the offending vehicle, however, he has sold the said vehicle to non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 4 on 11.01.2019 and accordingly the agreement in this regard, Ext. D-1, is also executed. He also submits that the in the evidence, appellant has categorically stated that on the date of execution of agreement of sale of the vehicle bearing number CG16ZD0695, appellant has also signed From 29-30 for transfer of name of purchaser in the record of the RTO. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has arrived at a conclusion that on the date of accident vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions, the driver was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, and further that 5 / 7 the policy issued by the insurance company was an act only policy under which occupant/ passengers are not covered. Hence, the insurance company has been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal from the liability. She however submits that in the facts of the case, Claims Tribunals has rightly passed the award fastening the liability upon appellant/ non-applicant No. 2, who is registered owner and Respondent No. 4/ non-applicant No. 1, driver of the vehicle, jointly and severally, hence, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has raised only one ground before this court during course of argument with respect to fastening of liability upon him also on the ground that he has sold the vehicle prior to the date of accident. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of facts and evidence recorded as finding that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing Driving licence, which is breach of conditions of insurance policy. It further recorded that the policy purchased for offending vehicle was a ‘Private car liability only policy’ and not a comprehensive policy covering risk of the occupants of the vehicle. 13. Undisputedly the appellant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The owner is defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988, which reads as under: “2. Definitions:- (30) "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 6 / 7 person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement; 14. In the case at hand, admittedly the appellant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, the agreement is with regard to the sale of the vehicle which is not covered under the definition of owner under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988. The liability to satisfy the amount of compensation in the facts of the case where the vehicle has been sold to another person has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 and has held as under: “13. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the “owner”. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident 7 / 7 within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. … 14. The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In T.V. Jose [T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 94] , this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled.” 15. Considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that in the facts of the case the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon appellant being the registered owner. No other ground has been raised in this appeal by the appellant challenging the impugned award. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge