Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-363-2022 2025:CGHC:37227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 363 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 10.03.2021, passed in claim Case No.545/2016 (Neelam v. Omprakash and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] Deepak Kumar S/o Prasan Kumar Pradhan Aged About 41 Years R/o. Madhubadi Krishna Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Neelam D/o Late Sujeet @ Surjeet Chhabda Aged About 19 Years R/o Nayapara, Kirtinagar, Ward No. 12 Punjabi Gurudwara, Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Omprakash Dhruv, S/o Gulal Singh Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Tifra Godpara, Police Station Sirgitt, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Truck Bearing No. C.G. 04/f.B./8872) 3 - Hitesh S/o. Basant Kumar Dewangan, R/o House No. 866 Shivaji Chowk Rajim, Police Station Nayapra Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. Now R/o. Opposite Royal Bar Moti Nagar Boriya Road, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Woner Of The Offending Truck Bearing No. C.G.04/f.B./8872) 4 - Kamal Ali S/o Yunus Niyaji, Aged About 31 Years R/o. Masanganj Near Subhash Mill, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-363-2022 (Order on Board) 30.07.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 10.03.2021, passed in claim Case No.545/2016 (Neelam v. Omprakash and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) [for short the “AMACT”], whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01 & 02/claimants has been allowed and liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,30,554/- alongwith interest @ 6% PA has been fastened upon the appellant by holding that since he was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, which occurred on 01.03.2015, therefore, he is responsible to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in allowing the claim application of the claimants. He vehemently argued that since the offending vehicle has already been transferred in the name of respondent No.03 herein, therefore, learned AMACT has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant herein. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and present appeal be allowed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.03 would support the impugned award Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-363-2022 and submits that the learned AMACT has rightly fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant, as on the date of accident i.e. on 01.03.2015, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the same was subsequently transferred in the name of respondent No.03 that too much after the accident i.e. on 08.04.2016. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.01 & 02/claimants has also filed cross-appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned AMACT and would submit that the amount awarded by the learned AMACT is on lower side, therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, admitted, the accident took place on 01.03.2015 and, at that time, the appellant herein was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which the learned AMACT has also recorded as finding to that effect in Para-17 of the impugned award and, subsequently, the respondent No.03 herein became the owner of the said vehicle on 08.04.2016 (i.e. after more than 01 year from the date of accident). Therefore, since the appellant was proceeded ex-parte before the learned AMACT and he could not get the opportunity to lead any evidence to the effect that the offending vehicle was in actual Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-363-2022 control of the respondent No.03 herein, as he already sold the same, it cannot be a ground to entertain this appeal for the simple reason that at the time of accident i.e. 01.03.2015, the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Consequently, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the said findings recorded by the learned AMACT while fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant herein and, as such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. So far as cross-appeal filed by the respondents No.01 & 02/claimants is concerned, it has been argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned AMACT is on lower side and, therefore, same is liable to be enhanced. However, in view of the finding arrived herein-above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any good ground to entertain the cross appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. Therefore, same is also liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, both, the appeal filed by the appellant as well as the cross-appeal filed by the claimant are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if