Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1130 of 2018 1 - M/s Prince Business India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Manjeet Singh Gumbar, S/o Late Govind Singh Gumbar, Aged About 48 Years. R/o In Front Of Dr. Dheer Clinic, Dayalband, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle). versus ... Appellant 1 - Smt. Ranjana Dhruv W/o Late Virendra Bahadur Singh Dhruv Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rahul @ Upendra Singh Dhruv S/o Late Virendra Bahadur Singh Dhruv Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Their Natural
Legal Reasoning
Guardian Mother Smt. Ranjana Dhruv, W/o Late Virendra Bahadur Singh Dhruv, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rohit @ Vijendra Singh Dhruv S/o Late Virendra Bahadur Singh Dhruv Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ranjana Dhruv W/o Late Virendra Bahadur Singh Dhruv, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Phool Bai Dhruv W/o Late Gopal Singh Dhruv Aged About 70 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lalit Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Itwari Ram Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Tikrapara Shivaji Marg, Lane No. 2, Ward Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.22 14:59:52 +0530 2 No. 32, Police Station City Kowali, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Since Died). Through Vehicle Owner- M/s Prince Business India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Manjeet Singh S/o Late Govind Singh Gumbar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o In Front Of Dr. Dheer Clinic, Dayalband. Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raman Sharma S/o Ramvilas Sharma, Aged About 41 Years R/o Madanpur, Tashil Madanpur, District Gaya (Bihar), at present R/o Near State Bank, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Other Respondents : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 21 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. The present is an Owner’s appeal assailing the award dated 29.06.2018 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 33/2013, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 33,75,834/- with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.62,62,550/- claimed by the unfortunate widow, sons and mother (respondents No. 1 & 4 herein) of deceased – Virendra Bahadur by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 24.11.2012, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.33,75,834/- as compensation along with interest @ 3 8% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Honda Car bearing registration No. CG-10- EM-0012 by its driver Lalit Kumar Kashyap (died) – respondent No.5 herein; Virendra Bahadur died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident; in para 15, the tribunal found that the appellant herein is the registered owner of the offending vehicle; though he pleaded in his reply that on 10.09.2012, he had sold the vehicle to Raman Sharma/respondent No. 6 herein vide Ex.D-1, but the registration certificate book (Ex,.P-10) reveals that the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of purchaser Raman Sharma, therefore, the liability of the registered owner cannot be ruled out as per Section 2(3) of M.V. Act. Hence, the Owner/appellant was held liable to pay compensation as he owned the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant had already sold his vehicle to Raman Sharma and handed over possession to him, and Raman Sharma has admitted the said fact. The tribunal, while passing the award, ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant had the transfer documents signed by Raman Sharma for transfer of the vehicle, but due to his illness and negligence of Lalit Kumar Kashypa, respondent No. 5, the documents could not be presented before the competent authority for transfer of the vehicle. He further submits that the evidence of the appellant has not been considered properly by the tribunal while fastening the sole liability on the appellant. 4 He also submits that the tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier while determining the amount of compensation and has wrongly assessed the annual income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 2,44,872/-. The tribunal, while determining the amount of compensation, has grossly erred in taking the hike of salary @ 30% and erred in determining the annual income to the tune of Rs. 2,36,131/-. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed, and the appellant is entitled to be exonerated. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. The main contention of the owner/appellant is that the offending vehicle had already sold to Raman Sharma/respondent No.6 herein, therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. The issue with respect to liability of payment of compensation has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 and has held that the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner and the owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The relevant paras No. 12 & 13 of the said judgment are as under:- “12. 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 5 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 Act of 1939. 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 within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi. 13. 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 Dr. T. V. Jose, 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. ” 9.Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and As per the MV Act, “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. Undisputedly, in the present case, at the time of accident, the registered owner of the offending vehicle was the 6 appellant as the name was not transferred. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that it is the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle who are liable for payment of compensation is found to be proper. 10.So far as the next contention with regard to the quantum part of the compensation is concerned, in this regard, considering the salary slip of the deceased of the month of October, 2012, Ex.P-11, the tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 20,406/-. Further, the deceased was 42 years old at the time of the accident, therefore, 30% future prospects would be added, and the claimants are four in number; therefore, ¼ income would be deducted towards personal expenses, and also considering the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 14 has been applied by the claims tribunal and the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 33,05,834/- and awarding a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- on other heads a total compensation of Rs. 3,75,834/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. Thus, considering the evidence available on record, this Court does not find that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in this regard is also not found acceptable. 11.Hence, the findings recorded by the claims tribunal is on the basis of the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. 12.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/owner is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. H.L. Sahu Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge