1 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 24 of 2013 Decided on: 18.03.2026 ________________________________________________ OIC Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Nagina & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondent No. 5. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, has been filed filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Court below, against order/award dated 30.10.2012, passed by learned CommissionerEmployees Compensation Act, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Case No. 42/2011, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) 5,09,787/- was granted to the petitioners and both the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the same. 2. The petitioners filed a petition before the learned Commissioner below on account of death of Mohd. Yusuf, wherein, it has been averred that deceased was a workman, employed by respondent No. 1, Pawan Kumar, as driver in his Car bearing registration No. PB-08-AC-6957 and during the course of his employment, he received injuries in an accident resulting in his death on 17.07.2008. According to the petitioners, at the time of accident, deceased was 40 years of age and was earning Rs. 4,500/-, as such, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs. 3. Respondent No. 1 by filing reply, took preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, limitation, locus standi, petition is bad for want of verification and non- joinder of necessary parties. On merits, It has been denied that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 1 as driver in his Car bearing registration No. PB-08-AC-6957 3 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) and accident has occurred during his employment with respondent No. 1. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, it has been submitted on merits that respondent No. 1 is not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-08-AC-6957 and instead, one Dinesh Chopra is the owner of the said vehicle. 5. By filing rejoinder(s), contents of the reply(ies) are denied and contents of the petition are reiterated. 6. On 11.02.2010, the learned Commissioner below had framed the following issues for determination and adjudication:- “(a) Whether the deceased was workman employed or not? (b) Whether he died during the course of employment? (c) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if yes, from whom? (d) Relief.” 7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed and the petitioners (claimants) were held entitled for total 4 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) compensation of Rs. 5,09,787/- to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 30.10.2012, which was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Commissioner below has rightly held the appellant for payment of compensation in the absence of any policy in the name of Shri Pawan Kumar and in the absence of any relationship of employer and employee with the insured Shri Dinesh Chopra, the registered owner of the vehicles? (ii) Whether the claimants have proved on the record the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and Shri Pawan Kumar and the wages being paid to the deceased? (iii) Whether the Commissioner below is right in directing the appellant to pay the penalty in case the amount is not deposited within 30 days of the Award? (iv)Whether the transfer of the vehicle was complete only on the basis of evidence and the appellant could be directed to satisfy the award passed in favour of a third party?” 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants and have also gone through the material available on record. 5 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle which is alleged to have been involved in the accident and in which, Mohd. Yusuf had died, was in the name of one Dinesh Chopra and as per law, the person in whose name the registration certificate is issued, is to be deemed as the owner of the vehicle. He further contended that as per the Insurance Policy, it was Dinesh Chopra, who was insured and not Pawan Kumar (respondent No. 1). He also contended that the award, as passed against the Insurance Company is not sustainable and it was only Pawan Kumar, who is liable to pay the compensation. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants contended that deceased Mohd. Yusuf was an employee of respondent No. 1, Pawan Kumar at the time of accident and he died during the course of his employment, therefore, learned Commissioner below has rightly awarded compensation in favour of the claimants. 12. It is settled law that in case the registered owner purports to transfer vehicle, but continues to be reflected in the records of Registering Authority as owner of the vehicle, 6 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) he would not stand absolved of liability. In Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 983, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the registered owner has purported 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 liability. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment read as under:- “12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported 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 liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal 7 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the First respondent was the ‘owner’ of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi. 13. 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 Dr T V Jose, 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.” 13. In the instant case, perusal of Registration Certificate, Ext. RC shows that vehicle has been registered in the name of Mr. Dinesh Chopra. However, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants brought to the notice of this Court that on the reverse side of RC, it has been mentioned that vehicle in question was transferred to 8 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) one Naresh Kumar Mehta, S/o Sh. Devi Dass Mehta. But in the absence of any concrete material on record, it cannot be ascertained at this stage as to whether the name of Naresh Kumar Mehta has been reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle or not. Further, it has also come on record that thereafter Naresh Kumar Mehta has transferred the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 1, Pawan Kumar who denied that the deceased was employed by him as driver in his Car bearing registration No. PB-08-AC-6957 and accident has occurred during his employment with him. It may also be pertinent to mention here that prior to filing of the claim petition before the learned Commissioner below, claimants have also filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, copy whereof has been placed on record as Ext. X-2, wherein, Dinesh Chopra has been arrayed as respondent No. 2, being owner of the offending vehicle. 14. Record further reveals that an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar before the learned Commissioner below during the 9 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) pendency of the petition for impleadment of Naresh Kumar Mehta as necessary party, but later on said application was withdrawn on 02.03.2012. Record also reveals that neither Naresh Kumar Mehta nor Dinesh Chopra were arrayed as parties before the learned Commissioner below. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar’s case (supra) and also in view of the successive transfers of the vehicle, which are not registered with the registering authority, the registered owner of the vehicle would be necessary party for effective adjudication of the case. 15. Hence, in view of the above discussion, impugned order/award dated 30.10.2012, passed by learned Commissioner below is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned Commissioner below to decide the same afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to each of the parties. 16. It is made clear that not more than two opportunities shall be granted to each of the parties to lead evidence. 10 ( 2026:HHC:7839 ) 17. Needless to state that if any of the parties files an application for impleadment of party(ies), the same shall be decided by the learned Commissioner below in accordance with law. 18. Since the accident pertains to the year 2008, the learned Commissioner below is directed to decide the case on or before 30.09.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner below on 20.04.2026. 19. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Commissioner below forthwith. 20. The appeal is disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 18th March, 2026 Judge (raman)