1 2026:CGHC:20953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 482 of 2020 1 - Sukh Ram Patel S/o Sitaram Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Charouda, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.................Non-Applicant No. 2 (Owner (Sold Vehicle), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Premnath Pandey S/o Bisnath Pandey, Aged About 29 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 18, Bore Well Chowk, Veer Shiwaji Ward, Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, 2 - Savitri Pandey D/o Bisnath Pandey, Aged About 36 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Bore Well Chowk, Veer Shiwaji Ward, Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, 3 - Hemlata Pandey D/o Bisnath Pandey, Aged About 31 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Bore Well Chowk, Veer Shiwaji Ward, Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, 4 - Bisnath Pandey S/o Itwari Pandey, Aged About 57 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Bore Well Chowk, Veer Shiwaji Ward, Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, 5 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramsharan Sharma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Kunwa, Sakari (Amera) Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.................Non Applicant No. 1, 6 - The New India Insurance Company Limited (460401) Address Top Of Indian Union Bank At Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh..................Non Applicant No. 3, KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.06 17:29:23 +0530 2 --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. SP Sahu appears on behalf of Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. GVK Rao appears on behalf of Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. MAC No. 1994 of 2019 1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramsharan Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Nearby Kuwa Sakri (Amera), Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cruzer Taxy No. C.G.-04-T-9917). (Driver), ---Appellant Versus 1 - Premnath Pandey S/o Bisnath Pandey Aged About 29 Years By Caste - Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Borwell Chowk, Veer Shivaji Ward, Baloda Bazar Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Savitri Pandey D/o Bisnath Pandey Aged About 36 Years By Caste - Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Borwell Chowk, Veer Shivaji Ward, Baloda Bazar Police Station City Kotwali, Bloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemlata Pandey D/o Bisnath Pandey Aged About 31 Years By Caste - Kumhar, R/o Ward No.18, Borwell Chowk, Veer Shivaji Ward, Baloda Bazar Police Station City Kotwali, Bloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bisnath Pandey S/o Itwari Pandey Aged About 57 Years By Caste - Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 18, Borwell Chowk, Veer Shivaji Ward, Baloda Bazar Police Station City Kotwali, Bloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sukhram Patel S/o Sitaram Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Charouda, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar 3 Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cruzer Taxy No. C.G. -04-T-9917), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - The New India Insurance Company Limited (460401) R/o Above Indian Union Bank, Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cruzer Taxy No. C.G. -04-T-9917)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. GVK Rao on behalf of Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. SP Sahu on behalf of Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05/05/2026 1. Owner of the vehicle has preferred MAC No.482/2020 seeking setting aside of the impugned award dated 26.9.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in claim case No.02/2018 and to exonerate him from liability whereas, MAC No.1994/2019 has been preferred by the driver of the vehicle seeking same relief. 2. Since the aforesaid Appeals arise out of same accident, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In the case at hand, the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability upon owner and driver holding that the offending vehicle was Taxi and the same did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. 4 MAC No. 482 of 2020 4. Mr. SP Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of owner of the vehicle/appellant would submit that he has already sold the vehicle to driver namely, Sanjay Kumar and a false claim is being made against him and, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company would submit that the Insurance Company has already been exonerated. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. A careful perusal of the document (Ex.-A-1-C), which is the registration certificate, would show that Sukh Ram Patel is the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident and insurance policy was also issued in his favour. The Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others1 has held that the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he is liable to compensate. Accordingly, it is held that Sukh Ram Patel being the owner of the vehicle (vide Ex.A-1-C), insurance policy was also issued in his favour and he did not enter the witness box to prove that he has already sold the vehicle to the 1 (2018) 3 SCC 1 5 driver, is liable to compensate. Para-14 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:- “14. The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In T.V. Jose2, this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled.” 8. In that view of the matter, the Appeal viz. MAC No.482/2020 filed by Sukh Ram Patel deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. MAC No. 1994 of 2019 9. In view of the finding recorded in the preceding paragraphs of this order that Sukh Ram Patel is the registered owner of the vehicle, the present Appeal filed by appellant – Sanjay Kumar (driver) is not required to be adjudicated on merits. It is accordingly disposed of. However, it is made clear that mandatory deposit made by appellant Sanjay Kumar be refunded to him as per Rules. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve 2 T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748