High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, despite the names of Sri Pankaj Pathak and Sri M.G. Tripathi having been shown as counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal is of the year 2011 and this Court, on 10.07.2025, had passed an order which reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The record indicates that the appeal was admitted on 12.01.2012, however, the record was not summoned. The service on the respondents is complete, yet none has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the names of Shri M.G. Tripathi and Pankaj Pathak as counsel for the respondents have been printed in the cause list. Be that as it may, it is an appeal of the year 2011, the Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. Let the record of the lower Court be summoned. Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps for summoning the record by 15.07.2025. Office shall ensure that the record be made available prior to the next date. List on 31.07.2025."

3. Despite the same, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents and the record is available; hence, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') / District Judge, Balrampur in Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008, whereby, in a death case, a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- along with 6% interest per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4.

5. The facts indicate that on 26.03.2008, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey (the deceased) was traveling along with Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was driving a Maruti car bearing No. DL- 1C/7528. It is stated that when the car was on the Balrampur– Gonda State Highway, near Gram Rajjanpur, an unknown truck came and hit the said car. Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey suffered grievous injuries and later, while he was being taken to the Medical College at Lucknow, he died on the way. It is in the aforesaid context that Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008 came to be filed by the widow and minor children of Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey.

6. Sri Pateshwari Prasad (the defendant No. 1 in the Claim Petition) was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1C/7528 and the driver, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, was impleaded as defendant No. 3. The Insurance Company was the defendant No. 2.

7. Sri Pateshwari Prasad, while contesting the claim petition, filed his written statement wherein he took the plea that he had sold the said vehicle to Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra on 03.02.2008. It was further stated that since he had already parted with the title of the said car, he could not be held liable and if at all any accident occurred, it was the driver, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra—who was also its owner—who should be made responsible.

8. The record further indicates that the Insurance Company had filed a written statement, taking the general defence that unless and until it was proved that the vehicle was duly insured and was being driven in accordance with the policy conditions, the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for any award. Significantly, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra did not contest the proceedings; as such, the matter proceeded ex parte against him.

9. Upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues.

10. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, it recorded a finding that the deceased suffered injuries, to which he succumbed, on account of the accident that occurred on 26.03.2008. The Tribunal also recorded that the offending vehicle, i.e., DL-1C/7528, was duly insured with the appellant–Insurance Company.

11. Noticing that the petition was under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it went on to consider the quantum of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- along with 6% interest per annum in favour of the claimants–respondents by means of the award dated 17.09.2010, which is under challenge before this Court.

12. The counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the instant claim petition was not maintainable for the reason that there were averments indicating that the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle. The policy did not insure the owner or any number of passengers sitting in the car and being only 'An Act Policy'; it covered only a third party and not the owner, driver or occupant on the car, hence, the liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company.

13. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is indicated that in the claim petition, it was clearly stated that the vehicle bearing No. DL- 1C/7528 belonged to Sri Pateshwari Prasad, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and that it was being driven by Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was its driver. It was also pleaded that an unknown truck dashed against the said car and on account of the said accident, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey received injuries and later succumbed to the same.

14. In light of the defence raised by Sri Pateshwari Prasad, who introduced an agreement stating that he had sold the said vehicle bearing No. DL-1C/7528 on 03.02.2008 in favour of Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra. It is material to note that Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was defendant No.3, did not contest the proceedings nor entered the witness box. Apparently, he was an important witness for two reasons: (i) he was the driver of the Maruti car; and (ii) he was also an eyewitness. Had he entered the witness box, the issue regarding the ownership of the vehicle, as sought to be raised by Sri Pateshwari Prasad, could also have been adjudicated.

15. Be that as it may, on the basis of the admitted facts and the law as it stands, it would be clear that on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.03.2008, the car DL-1C/7528 was recorded in the name of Sri Pateshwari Prasad as owner. Even assuming that the said car had been sold to Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, yet unless and until the name of the subsequent purchaser had been recorded in the relevant records maintained and available in the transport office, the rights and liabilities of the original owner continued to subsist. [See : Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar : (2018) 3 SCC 1 & Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2020) 18 SCC 224]

16. In light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is no more open to suggest that the accidental liability would fall on any other party except the person who is found to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question on the given date of the accident.

17. Examining the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the same does not have any force for the very simple reason that once the car was found to be recorded in the name of Sri Pateshwari Prasad, the deceased Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was traveling in the said car. Admittedly, the said car was being driven by Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra and it is also not disputed that the said vehicle was insured. In the given circumstance, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was a third party as far as the insurer and the insured are concerned; hence, his heirs cannot be deprived of the compensation. The submission that Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was the owner and was sitting in his own car and unless the policy covered the owner or the occupants of the car the claimants cannot receive compensation, is absolutely fallacious and the said submission is turned down.

18. The record further indicates that the Tribunal has already granted the right of recovery of the awarded sum to the appellant–Insurance Company, from its owner. That is a fact and the appellant may take recourse for recovery from the owner, as may be available to them in law. However, they cannot impugn the award, nor can the findings be said to be perverse as far as the grant of compensation to the heirs of deceased Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey is concerned.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The award dated 17.09.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008 is affirmed.

20. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants– respondents with updated interest within sixty days from today.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 31.7.2025/Shubhankar

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, despite the names of Sri Pankaj Pathak and Sri M.G. Tripathi having been shown as counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal is of the year 2011 and this Court, on 10.07.2025, had passed an order which reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The record indicates that the appeal was admitted on 12.01.2012, however, the record was not summoned. The service on the respondents is complete, yet none has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the names of Shri M.G. Tripathi and Pankaj Pathak as counsel for the respondents have been printed in the cause list. Be that as it may, it is an appeal of the year 2011, the Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. Let the record of the lower Court be summoned. Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps for summoning the record by 15.07.2025. Office shall ensure that the record be made available prior to the next date. List on 31.07.2025."

3. Despite the same, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents and the record is available; hence, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') / District Judge, Balrampur in Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008, whereby, in a death case, a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- along with 6% interest per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4.

5. The facts indicate that on 26.03.2008, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey (the deceased) was traveling along with Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was driving a Maruti car bearing No. DL- 1C/7528. It is stated that when the car was on the Balrampur– Gonda State Highway, near Gram Rajjanpur, an unknown truck came and hit the said car. Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey suffered grievous injuries and later, while he was being taken to the Medical College at Lucknow, he died on the way. It is in the aforesaid context that Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008 came to be filed by the widow and minor children of Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey.

6. Sri Pateshwari Prasad (the defendant No. 1 in the Claim Petition) was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1C/7528 and the driver, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, was impleaded as defendant No. 3. The Insurance Company was the defendant No. 2.

7. Sri Pateshwari Prasad, while contesting the claim petition, filed his written statement wherein he took the plea that he had sold the said vehicle to Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra on 03.02.2008. It was further stated that since he had already parted with the title of the said car, he could not be held liable and if at all any accident occurred, it was the driver, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra—who was also its owner—who should be made responsible.

8. The record further indicates that the Insurance Company had filed a written statement, taking the general defence that unless and until it was proved that the vehicle was duly insured and was being driven in accordance with the policy conditions, the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for any award. Significantly, Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra did not contest the proceedings; as such, the matter proceeded ex parte against him.

9. Upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues.

10. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, it recorded a finding that the deceased suffered injuries, to which he succumbed, on account of the accident that occurred on 26.03.2008. The Tribunal also recorded that the offending vehicle, i.e., DL-1C/7528, was duly insured with the appellant–Insurance Company.

11. Noticing that the petition was under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it went on to consider the quantum of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- along with 6% interest per annum in favour of the claimants–respondents by means of the award dated 17.09.2010, which is under challenge before this Court.

12. The counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the instant claim petition was not maintainable for the reason that there were averments indicating that the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle. The policy did not insure the owner or any number of passengers sitting in the car and being only 'An Act Policy'; it covered only a third party and not the owner, driver or occupant on the car, hence, the liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company.

13. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is indicated that in the claim petition, it was clearly stated that the vehicle bearing No. DL- 1C/7528 belonged to Sri Pateshwari Prasad, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and that it was being driven by Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was its driver. It was also pleaded that an unknown truck dashed against the said car and on account of the said accident, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey received injuries and later succumbed to the same.

14. In light of the defence raised by Sri Pateshwari Prasad, who introduced an agreement stating that he had sold the said vehicle bearing No. DL-1C/7528 on 03.02.2008 in favour of Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra. It is material to note that Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, who was defendant No.3, did not contest the proceedings nor entered the witness box. Apparently, he was an important witness for two reasons: (i) he was the driver of the Maruti car; and (ii) he was also an eyewitness. Had he entered the witness box, the issue regarding the ownership of the vehicle, as sought to be raised by Sri Pateshwari Prasad, could also have been adjudicated.

15. Be that as it may, on the basis of the admitted facts and the law as it stands, it would be clear that on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.03.2008, the car DL-1C/7528 was recorded in the name of Sri Pateshwari Prasad as owner. Even assuming that the said car had been sold to Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, yet unless and until the name of the subsequent purchaser had been recorded in the relevant records maintained and available in the transport office, the rights and liabilities of the original owner continued to subsist. [See : Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar : (2018) 3 SCC 1 & Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2020) 18 SCC 224]

16. In light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is no more open to suggest that the accidental liability would fall on any other party except the person who is found to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question on the given date of the accident.

17. Examining the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the same does not have any force for the very simple reason that once the car was found to be recorded in the name of Sri Pateshwari Prasad, the deceased Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was traveling in the said car. Admittedly, the said car was being driven by Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra and it is also not disputed that the said vehicle was insured. In the given circumstance, Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was a third party as far as the insurer and the insured are concerned; hence, his heirs cannot be deprived of the compensation. The submission that Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey was the owner and was sitting in his own car and unless the policy covered the owner or the occupants of the car the claimants cannot receive compensation, is absolutely fallacious and the said submission is turned down.

18. The record further indicates that the Tribunal has already granted the right of recovery of the awarded sum to the appellant–Insurance Company, from its owner. That is a fact and the appellant may take recourse for recovery from the owner, as may be available to them in law. However, they cannot impugn the award, nor can the findings be said to be perverse as far as the grant of compensation to the heirs of deceased Sri Krishna Mohan Dubey is concerned.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The award dated 17.09.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 50 of 2008 is affirmed.

20. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants– respondents with updated interest within sixty days from today.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 31.7.2025/Shubhankar