1 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1958 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Shri Ghanshyam Nirmalkar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Balco Nagar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner of The offending motorcycle No. Cg-12-Aa-8064) (Non- Applicant No. 02). ... Appellant versus 1 - Mahadev Ajgalle S/o Shri Gangaram Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Dhamalpur, P.S. Gidhauri, Tahsil Tundra, Dist - Balodabazaar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhuneswar Sahu S/o Shivnath Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Motipur, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shahil Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. O. P. Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 06/02/2026 1. The appellant/owner has challenged the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 learned Tribunal, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 64/2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,62,950/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of the death of Duleshwari Bai Ajgalle and fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending motorcycle as the said motorcycle was not insured. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2022, at around 21:30 hours, when Duleshwari Bai was returning to village Dhamalpur, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-12-AA-8064, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed her. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimant, who is husband of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it was pleaded the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 57 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. The owner of the motorcycle filed his reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. He pleaded that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving licence. 5. The insurance company also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the issues, parties led their evidence, and thereafter the impugned award was passed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the offending motorcycle was sold to one Shatrughan Lal Sahu in the year 2017 and the motorcycle was in his possession at the relevant time. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening liability upon the appellant. He would argue that 3 Shatrughan Lal Sahu was not impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Driver would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is an admitted fact that the offending motorcycle was not insured on the date of the accident. Though a plea was taken by the appellant that the motorcycle was sold to one Shatrughan Lal Sahu in the year 2017 but no documentary evidence was produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate the said plea. It is also not in dispute that the name of Shatrughan Lal Sahu was never transferred in the registration certificate of the motorcycle. 11.The registration certificate of the offending motorcycle clearly reflects the name of the appellant herein as the registered owner. 12. Shatrughan Lal Sahu (NAW/5), in his statement, admitted that he had purchased the offending motorcycle and subsequently sold it to a showroom in exchange offer. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Others, reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 983 has categorically held that the registered owner of the offending motorcycle is solely liable so far as the liability is concerned. The relevant para-12 is read 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 motorcycle stands registered who, 6 Mohan Benefit (P) Ltd. v. Kachraji Raymalji, (1997) 4 9 SCC 103 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 610; Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 270 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 209; Mukesh K. Tripathi v. LIC : (2004) 8 SCC 387 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1128, Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) 5 SCC 409, State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assn. (2002) 1 SCC 589 : 5 SCEC 217, Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 467 and placed reliance on Kailash Nath Kothari [Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal : (1988) 1 ACC 204 : (1988) 2 TAC 25 (Ori) and Bhavnagar Municipality v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai : 1995 SCC OnLine Guj 167 : AIR 1996 Guj 51; Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma, (2008) 5 SCC 107 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 531; Pushpa v. Shakuntala, (2011) 2 SCC 240 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 399 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 682; T.V. Jose [(2001) 8 SCC 748 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 94] , SCC p. 51, para 10; U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum, (2011) 8 SCC 142 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 66 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 376; Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 142 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 304 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 251.” 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 motorcycle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the motorcycle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the motorcycle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the motorcycle, 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 5 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 motorcycle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the motorcycle 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 motorcycle. 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. 14.In the present case, since the offending motorcycle was not insured on the date of the accident and continued to be registered in the name of the appellant herein, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/owner of the offending motorcycle. 15. Considering the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim