1 CGHC010045432020 2026:CGHC:34322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 331 of 2020 Gargi Mahobia, D/o. Shri Bhola Shankar Mahobia, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Balod Road, Haldi, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh..............Owner ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Devki, W/o. Late Khemlal Janghel, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Village Mohgaon, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..............Claimant 2 - Raju Ram Janghel, S/o. Late Khemlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Village Mohgaon, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh..............Claimant 3 - Ku. Sandhya, D/o. Late Khemlal Janghel, Aged About 16 Years, (Minor), Through Her Natural Guardian i.e. Mother Smt. Devki, R/o. Village Mohgaon, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..............Claimant 4 - Ku. Hema, D/o. Late Khemlal Janghel, Aged About 6 Years (Minor), Through Her Natural Guardian i.e. Mother Smt. Devki, R/o. Village ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.10 10:27:51 +0530 2 Mohgaon, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh..............Claimant 5 - Toman, S/o. Late Khemlal Janghel, Aged About 4 Years (Minor), Through His Natural Guardian i.e. Mother Smt. Devki, R/o. Village Mohgaon, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh..............Claimant 6 - Chatur Lodhi, S/o. Shri Jageshar Lodhi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Village Chaknar, P.S. Gandai, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.............Owner/driver 7 - Ganesh Sharma, S/o. Shri Krishna Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o. Village Kopedih, P.S. Somni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.................Regd Owner ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 05.08.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 05.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in 3 Claim Case No.32/2019, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the appellant herein and respondents No.6 & 7 jointly and severally. 2. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant/non-applicant No.3 has been unnecessarily impleaded in the present litigation, as he had already sold the vehicle to Chatur Lodhi vide Ex.P-13 and on the date of accident, Ganesh Sharma was the registered owner of the said vehicle as per Ex.P-1. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant herein, jointly and severally, despite the appellant having no ownership over the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 3. Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, supports the impugned award and submits that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal do not warrant any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. As per Ex.P-1, non-applicant No.2, Ganesh Sharma, has admitted that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and he has convicted for offence under Section 5/180 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles 4 Act. Therefore, it is evident that Ganesh Sharma was the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Others1 has held that in view of the definition of “owner” under Section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered would be treated as “owner” of the vehicle for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Claims Tribunal in para 29 of the impugned judgment has clearly recorded a finding that Ganesh Sharma (Non-applicant No.2) was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant herein (Non-applicant No.3) had already sold the vehicle to Chatur Lodhi (Non-applicant No.1) vide Ex.P-13. In that view of the matter, the impugned award to the extent of appellant herein is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge 1 (2018) 3 SCC 1