1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1379 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on: 3.2.2026 Judgment Delivered on: 9.4.2026 1 - Dwarika Prasad S/o S/o Shri Jagdish Lilariya Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kuralu, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ............Shown As Owner Having Prossession Of Truck No. C. G. 07/c.- 1999. ........Non Applicant No. 4., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kinju Sahu W/o Wd/o Late Shri Chitranjan Sahu Aged About 24 Years Occupation House Wife. Minor Through His Mother Smt. Kumari Bai Wd/o Late Shri Sanat Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years. R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ............Applicant No. 4, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vedant Sahu S/o S/o Late Shri Chitranjan Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Kumari Bai Wd/o Late Shri Sanat RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years. R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. .............Applicant No. 2, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Wd/o Late Shri Sanat Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ............Applicant No. 3, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Dimpal Sahu D/o D/o Late Shri Sanat Kumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ...............Applicant No. 4, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Sanat Kumar Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Kumari Bai Wd/o Late Shri Sanat Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years. R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ..............Applicant No. 5, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pilaram Sahu W/o S/o Late Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Pendravan, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. .................Applicant No. 6, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tikeshwar Patel S/o S/o Shri Gajanand Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gadadih, Police Station Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, District 3 Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ...............Driver Of Truck No. C. G. 07/c.- 1999. ............Non Applicant No. 1, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Darshan Lal Aroda (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-07-2025. 8.1 - Smt. Pushpa Arora Wd/o Darshan Lal Arora R/o 43 C/c Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg. 8.2 - Prince Arora S/o Late Shri Darshan Lal Arora R/o 43 C/c Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg. 9 - Ramesh Patro S/o S/o Late Shri Damodar Patro Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Awanti Bai Chowk Kohka Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. .............Owner Having Possession Of Truck No. C. G.- 07/c.- 1999. ............Non Applicant No. 3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 7 : Ms. Lovely Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. MAC No. 1377 of 2018 1 - Dwarika Prasad S/o Shri Jagdish Lilariya Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Kuralu, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- 4 Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.......(Shown As Owner Having Possession Of Truck No. C.G.- 07/c.-1999).....(Non-Applicant No. 4), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.1), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rohit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through His Mother- Smt. Laxmi Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.2), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vikas Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Laxmi Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years. R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.3), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Punuram Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.4), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 5 - Punuram S/o Shri Jagnath Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.5), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Dukalhin W/o Shri Punuram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Pendravan, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant No.6), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tikeshwar Patel S/o Shri Gajanand Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gadadih, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of Truck No. C.G.- 07/c.-1999 ..... (Non-Applicant No. 1), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Darshan Lal Aroda (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-07-2025. 8.1 - Smt. Pushpa Arora Wd/o Late Darshan Lal Arora R/o - 43- C/c Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj District - Durg (C.G.). 8.2 - Prince Arora S/o Late Darshan Lal Arora R/o - 43- C/c Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj District - Durg (C.G.). 9 - Ramesh Patro S/o Late Shri Damodar Patro Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Awanti Bai Chowk Kohka Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner Having Possessin Of Truck No. C.G.- 07/c.-1999 .....(Non-Applicant No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 7 : Ms. Lovely Sharma, Advocate on 6 behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. These two appeals are arising out of one accident which was occurred on 13.4.2016 in which an award dated 16.5.2018 was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh in MACT No. 125/2016 as such they are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No.1 (applicant No.1), Smt. Kinju Sahu, respondent No.2 (applicant No.2), Vedant Sahu, respondent No.3 (applicant No.3), Smt. Kumari Bai, respondent No.4 (applicant No.4), Ku. Dimpal Sahu; respondent No.5 (applicant No.5), Jitendra Kumar Sahu and respondent No.6 (applicant No.6), Pilaram Sahu, are respectively the wife, son, mother, sister, brother, and grandfather of the deceased, late Shri Chitranjan Sahu, that respondent No.7 (non-applicant No.1), Tikeshwar Patel, was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Truck No. CG-07/C-1999, respondent No.8 (non-applicant No.2), Darshan Lal Aroda, is the registered owner of the said vehicle, and respondent No.9 (non-applicant No.3), Ramesh Patro, is stated to be the owner in possession thereof, while the appellant 7 (non-applicant No.4) has also been projected and shown before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the person in possession and control of the offending vehicle. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 6 (the claimants), in brief, is that on 13.04.2016, the deceased, Chitranjan Sahu, along with his friend Vinod Kumar Sahu, was returning from Shaktighat Biranpur to Pendravan on Motorcycle No. CG-07/LC-8898, and when they reached near Bhatgaon Road, respondent No.7, by driving the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to both, to which they succumbed. At the time of the incident, the deceased was about 24 years of age and was earning approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month while working at Shanti Krishi Farm House, Sahaspur. On account of his untimely death, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against respondent Nos.7 to 9 (non-applicant Nos.1 to 3) and the appellant (non-applicant No.4), claiming compensation of Rs. 46,98,144/-. Respondent No.7 and the appellant filed a joint written statement denying the occurrence of any collision between the motorcycle and the offending vehicle and contended that the vehicle had been falsely implicated with a view to obtain compensation. Upon consideration, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (C.G.), vide award dated 16.05.2018, allowed the claim in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum 8 from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 21.11.2016, till realization, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon respondent No.7 (non-applicant No.1), respondent No.8 (non- applicant No.2), and the appellant (non-applicant No.4). It is further submitted that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of filing the present appeal, and copies of the application seeking permission to deposit the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in law in fastening liability upon the present appellant. It is contended that the offending vehicle was originally registered in the name of Darshan Lal Aroda, and that respondent No. 9 herein, namely Ramesh Patro, had purchased the said vehicle in the year 2006. Thereafter, it is alleged that Ramesh Patro sold the vehicle to the present appellant; however, no document evidencing transfer of ownership, registration, or execution of any sale deed was ever produced before the learned Claims Tribunal, nor was any cogent evidence adduced to substantiate such transfer. In the absence of any documentary proof or legally admissible evidence establishing change of ownership, the fastening of liability upon the appellant is per se illegal and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the vehicle in question was in the possession and control of the present appellant without any material on record to support such a finding. Moreover, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in 9 appreciating the criminal proceedings and has wrongly relied upon the filing of a charge-sheet against the appellant and other persons, alleging that the vehicle was being plied without insurance, permit, and registration, to attribute liability to the appellant. Such findings, according to learned counsel, are contrary to the settled principles of law and are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly and judiciously fastened the liability upon the present appellant, and the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that the material available on record clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was in the possession and effective control of the present appellant at the relevant point of time, and therefore, the appellant cannot escape liability on mere technical pleas regarding transfer of ownership. It is further submitted that actual possession and control of the vehicle are material considerations for determining liability in a claim petition, and since the appellant was exercising dominion over the vehicle when the accident occurred, the Tribunal has rightly held him liable to satisfy the award of compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materiel available on record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the offending 10 vehicle was not insured on the date and time of the accident. Immediately after the occurrence of the accident, an FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-07/C.-1999. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the registered owner of the said vehicle was Darshan Lal Aroda; however, the vehicle was allegedly found to be in the possession of Ramesh Patro and Dwarika Prasad Lilariya, and accordingly, a criminal case was registered against them. Since Darshan Lal Aroda continued to be the registered owner, a notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was issued to him, in response to which he stated that he had sold the vehicle to Ramesh Patro in the year 2006. Thereafter, when Ramesh Patro was served with a notice under Section 91 of the CrPC, he stated that he had purchased the vehicle from Darshan Lal Aroda in the year 2006 and subsequently sold it to the present appellant. The present appellant, in turn, submitted an application dated 21.04.2016 before the SHO, Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara, asserting that although he had been served with a notice under Section 91 of the CrPC, he was neither the owner of the offending vehicle nor had he ever purchased the same, and that the vehicle had been handed over to the driver, namely Tikeshwar Patel. Before the learned Tribunal, Dwarika Prasad Lilariya was examined and he denied that Tikeshwar Patel was the driver, and further disclaimed any control or possession over the offending vehicle. Similarly, 11 Ramesh Patro was examined before the Tribunal; however, he failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his alleged purchase of the vehicle from Darshan Lal Aroda or its subsequent sale to the present appellant. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence on record, there is nothing to conclusively establish that the vehicle was ever purchased by, or was under the ownership, possession, or control of, the present appellant. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vaibhav Jain vs. Hindustan Motors Private Limited, 2025 2 SCC 208, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “15. In Rajasthan SRTC [Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, (1997) 7 SCC 481] (in short Rajasthan SRTC), the vehicle along with services of the driver were hired by RSRTC from its registered owner. The issue which arose for consideration by this Court was whether RSRTC, which had hired the vehicle along with services of the driver from the registered owner of the vehicle, could be held vicariously liable for the accident caused by use of that vehicle. Answering the question in the affirmative, this Court, on the principle of vicarious liability of RSRTC for the tort committed by a person under its control and command, held : (SCC p. 488, para 17) “17. … The general proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer, 12 that is the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible vicariously for the tort committed by the employee concerned during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, is a rebuttable presumption. If the original employer is able to establish that when the servant was lent, the effective control over him was also transferred to the hirer, the original owner can avoid his liability and the temporary employer or the hirer, as the case may be, must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the employee concerned in the course of his employment while under the command and control of the hirer notwithstanding the fact that the driver would continue to be on the payroll of the original owner.” 17. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 270 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] the question was as to who would be liable to pay compensation if the offending vehicle at the time of accident is under requisition for election. From the claimant's side, by relying on the decision of this Court in Guru Govekar v. Filomena F. Lobo [Guru Govekar v. Filomena F. Lobo, (1988) 3 SCC 1 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 13 535] , it was argued that regardless of the vehicle being in possession of some other person, the owner would be liable. Negativing this argument, this Court held that when a vehicle is requisitioned for State duty, the owner of the vehicle has no other alternative but to hand over the possession to the statutory authority and, therefore, the case would be distinguishable from the one where the owner gives the vehicle to someone else on his own free will. Holding so, it was observed : (Deepa Devi case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 270 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 209] , SCC p. 417, para 10) “10. … While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the 14 vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefor in terms of the Act, but he cannot exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view.” 8. In view of the substantial evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, it clearly emerges that the vehicle in question was, in fact, in the possession and control of the present appellant at the relevant point of time. This is evident from his own statement wherein he admitted that he had taken the vehicle on rent and thereafter handed it over to Tikeshwar Patel for being plied, thereby establishing his dominion and effective control over the offending vehicle. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to evade or absolve himself of liability to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal has held that Darshan Lal Aroda, the present appellant, and Tikeshwar Patel are liable to pay compensation, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, such a finding cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. However, considering the overall material available on record, the 15 award is modified to the extent that Darshan Lal Aroda, Tikeshwar Patel, and Dwarika Prasad Lilariya shall be jointly liable to pay the compensation in equal proportion. Since the registration certificate stood in the name of Darshan Lal Aroda and he has admittedly expired, the liability to the extent attributable to him shall devolve upon his legal heirs in accordance with law. 9. With this observation and direction, the appeals (MAC) filed by the appellant is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 3.2.2026 9.4.2026 - 9.4.2026 Raghu Jat