[2025:RJ-JP:47074] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2490/2016 1. DOONGA RAM S/O Shri Ashu Ram, R/o- Mali Mohalla, Parbatsar, Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur. (Owner of Bus). 2. Heera Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal, R/o- Village Kinsariya Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur. (Driver of Bus ----Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 Versus 1. Smt. Santosh W/o Late Shri Yogesh aged 33 years, 2. Malvika D/o Late Shri Yogesh aged 13 years, 3. Bindiya D/o Late Shri Yogesh aged 11 years, 4. Ravi S/o Late Shri Yogesh aged 7 years, 5. Shanti W/o Late Shri Chhotuji aged 59 years, 6. Sunil S/o Late Shri Chhotuji aged 28 years, Claimants-respondents no. 2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian/mother Smt. Santosh respondent no. 1. All Resident of-770/7, near Rajendra School, Paharganj, Distt. Ajmer. …...Respondents- Claimants. 7. Manmohan S/o Shri Uda Ram R/o- Lega Ki Dhani, Nimbarı Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur. (Regd. Owner of Bus). 8. Smt. Dhaglaai Devi Gehlot W/o Shri Shiv Lal R/o- 334, Gehloton Ki Dhani, Gram Chaukarı Kalan, Tehsil Bhopalgarh Distt. Jodhpur. (Insured/Veh.owner) 9. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, 106602, Makaan No. 308/10 Purana 698, Gulab Bagh, Ajmer & 2nd address E-8, EPIP, Ricco, Sitapura, Jaipur. 302022. (Insurer of the Bus) …...Respondents- Opp. Parties No. 3 to 5. For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mahur Mr. Ram Singh Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (2 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] 10/11/2025 1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment & award dated 03.02.2016, passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (Raj.) in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim No. 468/12, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed in favour of the respondents-claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents- claimants filed a claim petition with the facts that on 28.06.2012, the deceased along with one Ajay was going to his Sasuraal Guwaradi from Ajmer on a motor cycle bearing registration no. RJ- 01-SI-0034 and when he reached near the bus stand of Lampolaai village, which lies in the jurisdiction of Police Thana Padukalan, from the opposite side towards Merta, a bus bearing registration no. RJ-19-P-6072, being driven in high speed, hit the motor cycle. Resultantly, the deceased fell down on the road, the bus ran over his leg and he died during the treatment. Thereafter, an FIR bearing No. 102/2012 was registered at P.S. Padukalan Distt. Nagaur and after investigation, Challan under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) was filed against the respondent no. 1. 3. It has been submitted that the age of the deceased was 29 years and was working as mason on contract basis and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The respondents-claimants demanded a sum of Rs. 75,12,000/- as compensation from the appellants. The respondents-appellants no. 1 and 2 filed a reply separately with the pleadings therein that the bus in question was [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (3 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] insured with the respondent no. 5 and no accident was caused from the said bus and denied the facts of the claim petition for want of knowledge. 4. The respondent Smt. Dhaglaai Devi also filed a reply pleading that before the accident, she sold the said bus on 26.08.2011 to the registered owner Manmohan, and thus, she was not the owner of the bus at the time of the said accident. The respondent Smt. Dhaglaai Devi also filed a reply pleading that the said bus was sold by the registered owner Manmohan through an agreement to sell on 12.02.2012 to the appellant Doonga Ram and all the documents of the bus were given to him after receiving the sale consideration. Thereafter, the appellant Doonga Ram filed an application for releasing the said bus before the Judicial Magistrate, Merta claiming that he was wrongly impleaded as party to the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The respondent insurance company also filed a reply pleading that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased; there was no insurance coverage on the date of the accident and the policy filed by claimants was forged. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of negligence in favour of claimants as the Exhibit-4 Site-Plan clearly reveals that the motor cyclist was driving in high speed when a cow came in between, and in order to save it, he slipped and fell down. Further, it has been submitted that the appellant no. 1 was not the registered owner of the bus as the vehicle can be said to be legally transferred only when it is registered and is transferred by an [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (4 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] appropriate authority and as such, the registered owner alone can be held liable to pay compensation. He submits that the bus in question was having insurance on the date of accident and the signature on the policy matched with the signature submitted by the insurance company. Moreover, the matter against the appellants and the registered owner of the bus for preparing forged policy is still under trial and the persons named in FIR have been released on bail. He further submits that there being no evidence with respect to the job and income of the deceased, a huge and excessive compensation cannot be provided to him. Thus, the decision of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the registered owner and insurer of the bus be held liable to pay compensation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submits that the order of the learned Tribunal is just and fair. He further submits that the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective insurance policy at the time of alleged accident. This fact is clearly proved from the documentary evidence available on record including the Exhibits NA-1 and NA-5 wherein the insurance policy was up to 30.03.2012, whereas the accident took place on 26.08.2012. 8. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 9. In the light of the submissions made at bar, it falls upon the Court to assess whether there is a need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision when the appellant himself admitted that he was the occupant owner at the time of the accident. [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (5 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] 10. In the present case, the learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. The Exhibit-4 shows that the place where accident took place was a plain road and one can see far and wide, thus, the bus could have been stopped from a distance. The record shows that the previous insurance of the bus from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. was for a period of one year from 31.03.2010 to 30.03.2011 (Exhibit NA-5), post which, insurance from the Shriram General Insurance Company Limited was taken from 31.03.2011 to 30.03.2012 (Exhibit NA-1). The learned Tribunal found that while taking over the vehicle, the owner made alterations and forgeries in the insurance policy and changed the insured period of the bus in Exhibit-6 from 31.03.11 to 30.03.12 in the policy to 31.08.11 to 30.08.12, while the said accident occurred on 26.08.12. Thus, the issue with respect to the insurance of the vehicle was rightly decided in favour of the insurance company. However, the insurance company failed to prove that the vehicle was not being run under a valid and effective route permit at the time of accident. 11. With respect to the future increase in the income of deceased, the learned Tribunal considered the fact that the income from the work done by the deceased was not proved, however, considering the increasing inflation till the end of his life, various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that he was a person of healthy physique for more than 30 years, a future increase of 50% was fixed. Accordingly, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,77,510/- along with @6% interest was awarded and the [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (6 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] registered owner of the bus was held jointly and severally liable, while the insurance company was exonerated from its liability. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10192/2024 observed as under: "19. ...‘owner’ of a vehicle is not limited to the categories specified in Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act. If the context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is, could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation." 13. Considering the evidences on record, the Exhibit NA-6 shows the agreement dated 12.02.2012 via which the registered owner of the bus Mohanlal sold the bus to appellant no. 1 Doonga Ram and put him in possession, however he didn’t inform about the sale to RTO or DTO and thus, continued to remain the registered owner of the bus on the date of the accident. Moreover, appellant no. 1 himself admitted in Exhibit-8 notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act that as per Form no. 3 of the bus bearing registration no. RJ-19-P-6072, he is the owner and at the time of the accident, the bus was being driven by appellant no. 2 Heera Lal. Therefore, him being the occupant owner of the said vehicle for employment, has been proved. 14. Having regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above and the discussions made and the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision. It is clear that the vehicle was not insured at the time of alleged accident. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was the occupant owner having the command and control of the said vehicle at the time of the [2025:RJ-JP:47074] (7 of 7) [CMA-2490/2016] accident. Taking into consideration the facts appraised by the learned Tribunal and the precedents put on record, the Court finds no error in the compensation awarded by it. 15. In view of the discussion made above, this civil miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed as the submissions of the appellants lack merit. 16. Accordingly, the present civil misc. appeal is dismissed and the award dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No. 468/12 stands affirmed and does not warrant any interference. 17. The stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /64