IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1137 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================== THE ORIENTAL INURANCE CO LTD Versus ARCHANABEN WD/O PARIMALBHAI RAJPUT & ORS. ============================================== Appearance: MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3 RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 6 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,7 ============================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vadodara (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.870 of 2012, the appellant – opponent no.3 therein – The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall p. 2 hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas, for the appellant and learned Advocate Ms. A. B. Vaniya, for the respondent nos.1 to 3, whereas, the respondent nos.4, 5 and 7 remained absent. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, that on 10.01.2012 the deceased Parimalbhai Rajput was going for his job at GSFC Ltd., on his Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-DA-9171 and passing through Chhani Tolnaka at Bajwa turning point, at that time the opponent no.1 came by driving Tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-Y-6025, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of the deceased thrown down from his motorcycle and dashed with the first wheel of the tanker and sustained serious injuries on his both legs and he was admitted in Bhailal Amin Hospital and his one leg is imputed but thereafter, his condition become critical and he died on 19.01.2012. Therefore, the claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition. 4) The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the p. 3 vehicle was already sold to the driver by the registered owner, hence, in absence of any contract between the insured and insurer then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, the tanker was used for transportation of hazardous goods and there was no specific endorsement in Driving License for driving such vehicle as per Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the vehicle was driven by driver who was not holding driving license and there was statutory breach with respect to a valid and effective license. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. 5) Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3, has submitted that the deceased was a third part and he has nothing to do with the license and the coverage of the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. Hence, question does not arise to exonerate the Insurance Company once the Insurance Company has accepted the premium. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present appeal. 6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on p. 4 preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 14 wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint at Exhibit 17, panchnama at Exhibit 45, Inquest Panchnama at Exhibit 46, PM Report at Exhibit 50, Driving License of opponent no.1 at Exhibit 48, RTO Certificate at Exhibit 49, and after perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the opponent no.1 is a sole negligent for occurrence of accident and charge-sheet is also filed against him. 7) The present appeal is filed on the ground of liability and the liability is disputed on two grounds, first that the vehicle is already sold out and there is no contract between insured and insurer and another ground is that on the date of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective license as the same was expired in the year 2008 and the accident was occurred in the year 2012. The opponent no.3 Insurance Company to prove the defence has examined opponent no.2 – Nirmalsingh Harvansingh Bhillon at Exhibit 36, who is the registered owner of the tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-Y-6025, and he has deposed that on 28.01.2011 he has sold the said tanker to opponent no.1 Gurmitsingh Swaratsingh and the same p. 5 is not transferred in the name of opponent no.1. Perusing the Insurance Policy at Exhibit 40 it appears that the policy was in force from 12.03.2011 to 11.03.2012 and the accident took place on 10.01.2022 and accordingly the policy was in force at the time of accident and the opponent no.2 is the registered owner as per Section 2(30) of the MV Act. In this regard reference is required to be made to the judgment of Three- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay kumar and others, reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 983, held in para 12 reads 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 p. 6 provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal 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.” 8) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bihari Gupta Vs. Manmet & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 948, referred the aforesaid Three-Judges Bench decision. Therefore, as per Section 2(30) of MV Act owner means a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the owner. In the present case till date the ownership of the tanker is not transferred and the name of opponent no.2 is reflected as owner in the record of RTO Authority, hence, the liability of registered owner to pay the compensation is not be absolved and therefore arguments of the learned Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable. p. 7 9) If for the sake of arguments if we consider that on 28.01.2011 the tanker was sold and the driver was not the insured of the vehicle and the policy was issued in favour of the opponent no.2 then also once the policy was in force then it is the duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim to the third party as per Section 150 of the MV Act and hence on that count also the argument canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable. 10) So far the issue of Driving License of the opponent no.1 is concerned, no such defence was raised before the Tribunal and it is the first time such defence is raised in the appeal and who asserts the fact has to prove the same, therefore, in absence of any material or evidence the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company and even the deceased was a third party and he has nothing to do with the condition of the Driving License. This is not the case of invalid Driving License or there was no driving skill of the opponent no.1, but as per the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the opponent no.1 was holding license but the same was expired and not renewed but no evidence is lead as to after 2008 the Driving License of the opponent no.1 was not renewed or ineffective. In view of above, p. 8 the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not accepted. Further, the findings of the Tribunal qua factum of death, negligence and quantum does not call for any interference and not required to be disturbed and hence no interference is required with the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara, in MAC Petition No.870 of 2012. 11) Record and proceedings (if any) be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 12) Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI