Gopal Auto Through Managing Director, Netaji Chowk, Arang PS And Tehsil Arang District Raipur v. 1
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:52:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:40889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 87 of 2018 Gopal Auto Through Managing Director, Netaji Chowk, Arang PS And Tehsil Arang District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Gayatri Aadil W/o Santlal Aadil Aged About 48 Years Residents Of Village Rasni, P.S. And P.O. And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santlal Aadil, Aged About 40 Years Residents Of Village Rasni, P.S. And P.O. And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Radhelal Dhimar, S/o Makhanlal Dhimar, R/o Village Gullu, P.S. And P.O. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manoj Bihari, S/o Santosh Yadav, R/o Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of Bus Stand, Aamtha, Bhawanipatna Odisha Current Address- Parsada Stadium, Village Parsada, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate on behalf of For Respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 13.08.2025 1 Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.266/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No.2 and 3. 2 Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 03.12.2013, at about 9.00 PM, Ramkishan Aadil was going towards Parsada Stadium on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04-K-9506 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) and dashed with the divider on the road, due to which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. 3 The claimants who are parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on various heads. 4 On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,11,166/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No.2 and 3. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law. It is urged that there is no specific averment or evidence adduced by 3 respondent No.3 to show that the appellant was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of old vehicles. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that, on the date of the accident, the person whose name is recorded as the registered owner in the RC book and in the records of the Regional Transport Authority is to be treated as the owner of the vehicle for all purposes, and the liability is to be fastened upon such registered owner. It is contended that respondent No. 3 has sought to fasten liability upon the appellant by narrating a false and fabricated story, unsupported by any documentary evidence, possibly on the premise that the vehicle was uninsured. 6 It has been argued that the Motor Vehicles Rules specifically provide a statutory mechanism for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, which mandates the submission of Form 20 and Form 21 before the concerned RTO. In the present case, respondent No. 3 has failed to produce any document or evidence in respect of the alleged sale or transfer of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal, instead of insisting on strict proof, has acted on mere presumptions and assumptions to conclude that the vehicle was initially purchased by the appellant and thereafter sold to respondent No. 4. Such findings are perverse and unsupported by any legal evidence. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in deciding the issues against the appellant without considering the statement of respondent No. 4, 4 wherein he categorically admitted that the vehicle was entrusted to the deceased voluntarily. Moreover, the charge-sheet filed by the police clearly attributes fault to the deceased, which has been wholly ignored by the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has also failed to consider the material fact that the deceased had acted in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’). The relief granted in favour of the claimants is therefore unsustainable in view of the legal maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, as the claim is founded on an illegal act committed by the deceased himself. As such, the appeal be allowed and the appellant be exonerated to satisfy his liability for payment of amount of compensation. 7 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the impugned award and submits that upon appreciation the materials available on record, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 9 Upon perusal of the entire record and the evidence led before the learned Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that respondent No. 3 – Radhelal Dhimar, who was the registered owner of the offending motorcycle prior to the accident, has in clear and unequivocal terms deposed that he had sold/exchanged the vehicle bearing 5 registration No.CG-04-K-9506 to the appellant – Gopal Auto, and had, in the same transaction, purchased a new motorcycle from the appellant. He has further stated that, at the time of such sale/exchange, he executed all relevant transfer documents in favour of the appellant, thereby parting with possession and ownership of the offending vehicle. This statement has remained uncontroverted in cross-examination and has not been rebutted by any contrary evidence from the appellant. The record further reveals that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not covered by any valid insurance policy, a fact which stands admitted. 10 In the above factual background, the learned Claims Tribunal, after a careful appreciation of the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary material, has rightly fastened joint liability upon the appellant – Gopal Auto and respondent No. 4 – Manoj Bihari. The finding that the appellant was in possession and control of the vehicle at the relevant time is supported by cogent and reliable evidence, and is consistent with the settled legal position that liability under the M.V. Act is to be borne by the person who is the owner or in control of the vehicle at the time of the accident, particularly when no insurance coverage exists. 11 Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. The conclusions are firmly rooted in the 6 evidence available on record and in conformity with binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the person whose name stands in the records of the registering authority as the owner, or who is otherwise proved to be in possession and control, shall bear the liability for compensation. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any substantial error in law or fact warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. 12 Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 13 Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge