1 2025:CGHC:35147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1135 of 2018 1 - Salaj Agrawal S/o Kedarnath Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Sorid Naka, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhimram Kawade S/o Jaansingh Kawde, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Babu Dabena, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Manobai W/o Bhimram Kawde, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Babu Dabena, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tameshwar Kawde, S/o Bhimram Kawde, Aged About 17 Years Through The Guardian Father Bhimram Kawde, R/o Village Babu Dabena, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Muleshwar Darro, S/o Kawalsingh Darro, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Haatkarra, Police Station Korar, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Lacchuram Nureti, S/o Dularam Nureti, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Katholi, Post Tarandul, Police Station Korar, Tahsil 2 Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Authorized Seller/ Dealer Proprietor (Natraj Tractors Bastar Road Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. K. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (22.07.2025) 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant against the award dated 13.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar District Kanker (C.G.), in Claim Case No.22/2016, whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the amount of award to the respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.4,54,000/-. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, is that The respondents No. 1 to 3 (claimants) filed a claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), seeking compensation of 15,47,000/- for the ₹ death of Basant Kawde, alleging that on 04.12.2014, while he was travelling on Tractor No. M.F. 241 PDSS (Engine No. S.3251F96093, Chassis No. MEA908A5HE1018589), the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 4, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. An FIR was registered at Police Station Korar in Crime No. 161/2014 and a charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 4, with 3 respondent No. 5 recorded as the registered owner. The appellant, in reply, denied liability, contending that the vehicle had been sold to respondent No. 5 under a written agreement dated 24.10.2014 and possession was handed over on the same date, with the obligation to insure the vehicle falling upon respondent No. 5. The appellant asserted that they had been unnecessarily impleaded, submitting documents including the sale receipt and delivery card. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence, partly allowed the claim and awarded 7,10,400/- as compensation, holding both the appellant ₹ and respondent No. 5 jointly and severally liable, noting that the appellant had failed to produce conclusive evidence to prove the transfer of ownership prior to the accident. A certified copy of the impugned award is annexed as Annexure A/1. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that the tractor was driven by non-applicant No.1 and the registered owner of the tractor is non-applicant No.2. As the offending vehicle was taken on loan by way of an agreement and the insurance was also done by him as such the present applicant cannot be held liable to pay compensation along with the driver and owner i.e. Respondents No.4 & 5. He further submits that the vehicle was purchased by Lacchuram Nureti and the present appellant was neither in the possession nor in control of the said vehicle. It was further stated that since the appellant shall neither be in the possession nor in control of the offending vehicle, so he cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.5 is the owner/possession holder of the vehicle who has got the vehicle insured 4 on 26.08.22015 and the validity of the said policy was from 26.08.2015 to 25.08.2016. The vehicle in question was under the possession and control of the Respondent No.5 as such he would be liable to pay compensation and liability should be fastened upon the driver/owner of the offending vehicle. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, held both the appellant and respondent No. 5 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, noting failure by the appellant to conclusively prove the transfer of ownership before the accident. 6. Upon hearing submissions and reviewing documents, the court notes that liability under the Motor Vehicles Act can be fastened on both the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. 7. Since the appellant failed to conclusively establish transfer of ownership and absence of possession or control at the relevant time, and considering that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 4 and registered in the name of respondent No. 5, the liability rightly lies with the driver and owner. 8. The petition is allowed by fastening liability on the driver and registered owner of the vehicle (Respondents No. 4 and 5). The appellant shall be absolved of liability due to insufficient evidence 5 regarding transfer and possession. Consequently, compensation liability should rest with the driver and owner alone. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA