1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 660 of 2021 1 - Jiwan Lal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Chaitany Prasad Tiwari Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Bilaigarh, Police Station And Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Unregistered Owner), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Santra Bai W/o Late Chandram Mahilange Aged About 46 Years (Mentioned As 42 In Impugned Order) (Claimant) R/o Village Ramtala, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Akshay Mahilange S/o Late Chandram Mahilange Aged About 23 Years (Mentioned As 19 In Impugned Order) (Claimant) R/o Village Ramtala, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Manisha D/o Late Chandram Mahilange Aged About 21 Years (Mentioned As 17 In Impugned Order) (Claimant) R/o Village Ramtala, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Fular Ram S/o Balaram Mahilange Aged About 69 Years (Mentioned As 65 In The Impugned Order) (Claimant) R/o Village Ramtala, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tukaram S/o Darasram Sonwani R/o Lukapara, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Tractor Bearing No. Cg 04 D5260 And Trolley No. Cg 04 D 1335, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Hirabai W/o Late Gangaram Patel R/o Village Limtari, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Tractor Bearing No. Cg 04 D5260 And Unregistered Owner Of Trolley No. Cg 04 D 1335), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rambai W/o Chandan Singh R/o Village Bayaa, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Trolley No. Cg 04 D 1335), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.02 17:03:09 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 28.08.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 31.08.2021 passed in Claim Case No. 16/2017 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (for short, “the Tribunal”). A claim application under Sections 166 and 140 of the MV Act was filed by the claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4 seeking compensation of Rs. 50,31,000/- from the respondents. The learned Tribunal, after due consideration, awarded a sum of Rs. 11,28,400/- in favour of the claimants/ respondent No. 1 to 4 as compensation on account of the death of Chandram Mahilange in an unfortunate accident which occurred on 30.12.2016, caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., Tractor bearing registration No. CG- 04-D-5260 and Trolley bearing registration No. CG-04-D-1335, owned by respondent Nos.6 & 7 respectively. 2) As per the claim application, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle when it overturned on the main road at Village Kalmeedih Katgi due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5/Driver. As a result, the deceased, who was seated in the trolley, came under the tractor-trolley and died on the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station Kasdol against the driver under Section 304-A IPC. The pleadings further reflect that the deceased was about 45 years of age, working as a carpenter, and earning Rs. 300/- per day. 3) The driver of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application. Appellant, stated to be the unregistered owner of the offending vehicle, also filed his written statement, 3 contending that an agreement to purchase the said vehicle had been entered into with the registered owners, i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7. However, he denied the other averments and pleaded that he was neither the registered owner nor in possession of the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. Therefore, according to him, liability to pay compensation could not be fastened upon him. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the registered owners of the Tractor and Trolley, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement. 4) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues, and the respective parties led their evidence. 5) Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,28,400/- in favour of the claimants and held the driver, the registered owners, and the appellant (claimed unregistered owner) jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only an agreement to purchase had been executed, and the possession of the offending vehicle was never handed over to the appellant. Furthermore, the registration certificate was not transferred in the appellant’s name. Therefore, since the appellant was neither the registered owner nor in possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the incident, he is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation. 7) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the appellant continued to be the unregistered owner of the vehicle, he cannot escape liability. They submits that there was an mere execution of an agreement to sell, without transfer of registration, does not absolve the appellant of responsibility to pay the compensation. 8) The only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant can be held liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the appellant was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is evident that 4 although an agreement to sell had been executed, the registration of the vehicle continued to stand in the name of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held that liability in respect of a motor vehicle accident is fastened upon the person in whose name the vehicle is registered with the competent authority. 9) In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The appellant stands exonerated from liability to pay compensation. The claimants, however, shall be at liberty to execute the award against the driver, i.e., respondent No. 5, as well as the registered owners, i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of the offending vehicle. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari