Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28510 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 333 of 2011 Appellant :- Satya Narian Agarwal Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Abhishek Dwivedi,Radhika Kheria,Sachin Upadhyay,Shashank Singh,Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. Despite Vakalatnama being filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 by Sri Shashank Singh, Advocate, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the Court proceed to hear and decide the matter finally. 3. Under challenge is the award dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri/Additional District Judge, Room No. 6, Lakhimpur Kheri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 151 of 2003 inre: Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Satya Narain Agarwal and Another whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of 2,76,800/- along with interest in favour of the ₹ claimant/respondent no.1 herein against the respondent/appellant herein. 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an accident is said to have occurred on 22.07.2003 per which the claimant Shri Dharmendra Kumar met with an accident involving a car having Registration No. UP31B-2400 which struck his motorcycle with the result that his right leg got fractured and he suffered severe injuries. On account of the injuries suffered by the claimant in his right leg, he has been declared as 60 percent permanent physically handicapped as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer at Kheri. 5. Learned Tribunal, after examine the facts and the evidence led before it, awarded the aforesaid amount. 6. Being aggrieved, instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Satya Narian Agarwal. 7. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that vehicle in dispute namely the car involved in the accident which is said to have hit the motorcycle of the claimant had been sold off by the appellant on 17.09.2002 to alleged purchaser namely Smt. Urmila Singh. Admittedly, there is no registered agreement or a sale deed indicating the same. Admittedly no document or sale letter was given to the RTO per which new alleged owner may have been recorded in the RTO record. 8. Be that as it may, upon filing of claim application before the learned Tribunal, the alleged purchaser namely Smt. Urmila Singh put in appearance before learned Tribunal on being impleaded by the claimant. She filed her written statement in which she vehemently denied the purchase. 9. Learned Tribunal, after examining the facts including that no information being available with the RTO pertaining to the sale, was of the view of that no sale has taken place, therefore, the appellant has been held liable to pay the aforesaid amount on the ground of being the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. 10. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was a receipt of the sale. 11. No other ground has been urged. 12. On the other hand, Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has denied the very factum of sale and has also stated that once the owner of the vehicle involved was Sri Satya Narain Agarwal consequently, learned Tribunal has not erred in directing that the compensation would be payable by the owner of the vehicle i.e. by Sri Satya Narain Agarwal. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records. 14. From a perusal of records it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 22.07.2003 wherein Sri Dharmendra Kumar, the claimant, who was on a motorcycle was hit by a car having Registration No. UP31B-2400. On account of said accident, the claimant suffered severe injuries and has also been declared to be permanently physically handicapped as per certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer which indicates he has 60 percent disability. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant put in appearance and said that vehicle had been sold off to Smt Urmila Singh on 17.09.2002. In support thereof, a receipt was produced before learned Tribunal along with a cheque which was alleged to have been issued by the alleged purchaser namely Smt. Urmila Singh to the appellant/Sri Satya Narian Agarwal indicating the purchase of the said vehicle. 15. Learned Tribunal, vide award impugned, has examined the evidence as led before it and has concluded that the appellant herein has miserably failed to prove the factum of sale on 17.09.2002 to Smt. Urmila Singh and thus, passed the impugned award and the appellant therein has been directed to pay the compensation. 16. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the factum of sale on 17.09.2002. As already indicated above, learned Tribunal has considered the evidence as had been led before it and has concluded that neither the RTO has been informed about the factum of sale nor there is anything credible on record to indicate the factum of sale of the said vehicle to Smt. Urmila Singh. 17. Learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of B.D. Sharma Vs. Zarina and Another, reported in 2008 (4) ACC 581, wherein it has been held that whoever is owner of the vehicle on the basis of registration at the time of accident would be considered to be owner. As already indicated above, from the evidence as led by the appellant before learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has categorically held that the appellant has miserably failed to prove the factum of sale of the vehicle on 17.09.2002 to Smt. Urmila Singh and thus, Sri Satya Narain Agarwal has been held to be the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to indicate the factum of sale and to indicate about transfer of vehicle. 19. The aforesaid ground is found to be patently fallacious as Section 157 does not pertain to a factum of sale per se but pertains to the transfer of certificate of insurance when a sale is said to have been affected wherein the insurance would be deemed to be transferred with effect from date of transfer of vehicle. 20. The aforesaid provision by no stretch of imagination extends any benefit to the appellant. Accordingly, the said ground is also rejected. 21. Keeping in view aforesaid, no case for interference in the order of learned Tribunal is made out. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 22. The amount under deposit before this Court be remitted to learned Tribunal by the Office within two weeks, to be disbursed to the claimant along with other amount as per rules. 23. Office shall send a copy of this order along with learned trial Court record within two weeks from today as per procedure. On receipt of the said order, the learned Tribunal shall inform the claimant about the order passed by this Court. Order Date :- 14.5.2025/Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench