[2025:RJ-JP:26365] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3034/2007 Ram Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, R/o Village Chaksalagpura, P.S. Shivdaspura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (registered owner) ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Manju Sharma W/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, aged 29 years 2. Satya Narain Sharma S/o Shri Lakshmi Narain Sharma, aged 59 years 3. Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Satya Narain Sharma, aged 54 years 4. Suraj Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, aged 12 years 5. Kum. Kiran Sharma D/o Late Shri Hanuma Sahai Sharma, aged 10 years 6. Deepak S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, aged 6 years Nos.4 to 6 minors through their natural guardian and mother Smt. Manju Sharma W/o Late Shri Bhagwan Sahai Sharma All residents of village Vimalpura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Claimants/Respondents 7. Dinesh Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Narain Sharma, R/o village Gopalpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver) ----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranav Pareek with Mr. Anurag Gupta for Mr. Anoop Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 21.04.2007 passed by learned (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Jaipur, District Jaipur in claim case No.743/2004 (175/2003), whereby the claim petition was allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- was awarded in favour of [2025:RJ-JP:26365] (2 of 6) [CMA-3034/2007] the claimants/respondents and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded in connected case along with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 24.11.2002, the deceased- Hanuman Sahai Sharma along with his father Satya Narain Sharma were traveling by a scooter from Durgapura towards Vimalpura, and when they reached near C.I.T. College, a motorcycle bearing No. RJ-32-M-9437 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries and Hanuman Sahai Sharma succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, the claimants/respondents filed a claim petition for awarding a just compensation. 3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the non-claimant/respondent No.7- (driver of the motorcycle). Thereafter, filed a reply, whereby he denied the factum of the accident and submitted that the accident did not occur due to his negligence, and that the claim petition was based on false facts, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The non-claimants/appellant (owner of the motorcycle) also filed a reply to the claim petition and submitted therein that on the date of accident he was not the owner of the vehicle as he had already sold the said motorcycle to non-claimant/respondent No.7- Dinesh Sharma (driver) on 26.09.2002 through an agreement, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon him. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. [2025:RJ-JP:26365] (3 of 6) [CMA-3034/2007] 6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Manju Sharma, AW-2 Satya Narain Sharma and AW-3 Ramji Lal Sharma and produced Ex.1 FIR, Ex.2 Final Report, Ex.3 Crime Description Report, Ex.4 Site Plan, Ex.5 Inspector Report Scooter, Ex.6 Property Inspection, Ex.7 Post-mortem Report, Ex.8 Mechanical Inspection Report, Ex.9 Certificate, Ex.10 RC of Motorcycle, Ex.11 Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Ex.12 RTO Certificate. 7. In rebuttal, non-claimant/appellant examined himself as NAW-1, NAW-2 Ram Chandra and NAW-3 Ram Yadav and produced Ex. D-1 Order, Ex. D-2 Offence Acceptance Application and Ex. D-3 Sell Agreement. 8. After hearing arguments of both the parties and perusing the material available on record, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants/respondents and while deciding the facts of Claim No.743/2004 (175/2003) awarded a compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- to the claimants/respondents and fasten the liability upon the appellant being registered owner as per RC as well as on respondent No.6. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant- Owner of the motorcycle. 10. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the non- claimant/appellant is that prior to the accident, the non-claimant/appellant had already sold the motorcycle to non- claimant/respondent No.7 (driver of the motorcycle), therefore, liability to pay compensation ought not to have been fastened upon the present non-claimant/appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:26365] (4 of 6) [CMA-3034/2007] 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.7 opposes the said submissions and submits that on the date of accident the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon respondent No.6 as well as upon the non-claimant/appellant being registered owner. 12. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. From the record of the case, it is reflected that accident occurred on 24.11.2002 and till the filing of the claim petition, registration certificate of the motorcycle bearing No. RJ-32-M- 9437 stands in the name of the present non-claimant/appellant. The submissions of learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant that he has sold the vehicle cannot be accepted in light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. The definition of word "owner" is prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under:- "2 (30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 596 , has unequivocally held that [2025:RJ-JP:26365] (5 of 6) [CMA-3034/2007] "for the purpose of determining liability in motor accident claims, the registered owner of the vehicle is primarily liable, notwithstanding any sale or transfer of possession without a corresponding transfer of registration." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar reported in 2018 (3) SCC 1 held that "in view of the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who for the purposes of the said Act, would be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Where the registered owner purports to transfer the vehicle, but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of his liability as owner." Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pushpa @ Leela Vs. Shakuntala reported in 2011 SC 682 held that "the registered owner continues to remain owner and when the vehicle is Insured in the name of the registered owner, the Insurer would remain liable notwithstanding any transfer, would apply equally in the case of claims made by the insured himself in case of an accident. If the insured continues to remain the owner in law in view of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in particular Section 2(30) thereof, the Insurer cannot evade its liability in case of an accident." 16. It is also relevant to note the difference between the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the definition of owner in Section 2(19) of the Motor [2025:RJ-JP:26365] (6 of 6) [CMA-3034/2007] Vehicles Act, 1939 which has been repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the old Act 'owner' meant the person in possession of a motor vehicle. The definition has undergone a change. Legislature has consciously changed the definition of 'owner' to mean the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands. 17. The earlier definition of "owner" under the old Motor Vehicles Act, which included a person in possession, has been consciously omitted by the legislature in the present Act. Thus, the law is well settled and can be summarized:- "Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third party." 18. Thus, from the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this issue has been put to rest, and it is a settled principle law that the non-claimant/appellant (owner of the vehicle) cannot seek absorption of liability merely on the ground that the vehicle was sold. 19. In that view of the matter, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant lacks merit. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 21. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-115s