C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2276 of 2025 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2241 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================ RAMSINH LALSINH RATHOD Versus JAYDEEPSINH JORAVARSINH CHAUHAN & ORS. ============================================ Appearance: NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,2.1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 09/02/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT With consent of both the learned Advocates the matter is taken up for final hearing. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and the grounds and issue involved in the appeals are common, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The First Appeal No.2276 of 2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.176 of 2018 and First Appeal p. 2 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 No.2241 of 2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.175 of 2018. 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.176 of 2018 and 175 of 2018, the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants – original Claimants and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Gadhia, for the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 2.1 are duly served but remained absent. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the appellants that on 29.04.2018, the applicants – original claimants – appellants herein, were returning towards Village Khedavada on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-02-AQ-6875 driven by the applicant of MAC Petition No.176 of 2018 and the applicant of MAC Petition No.175 of 2018 was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. At that time, the opponent no.1 came driving his Accent car bearing Reg. No.GJ-02-CG-7623 from the opposite side, that is p. 3 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 Khedavada side, rashly and negligently. Therefore, the applicants stopped their motorcycle beside the road, but the opponent no.1 came on the wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the applicants and caused the alleged accident. As a result of which the applicants had fallen down on the road and sustained injuries including fracture and other multiple injuries resulting into disability. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record the has partly allowed both the claim petitions. 4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in considering the income of the appellants on notional basis and not awarding future prospect. He has further submitted that Tribunal has awarded meagre amount towards non pecuniary loss which is required to be enhanced. 5) Learned Advocate for respondent no.3 – Insurance Company has opposed the present appeals on the ground that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciating the evidence produced on record and awarded just, legal and proper compensation hence p. 4 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 no interference is required to be called for. He has further submitted that the vehicle was already sold and in absence of any contract between the insured and insurer then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the appellants. With these submissions he has requested to dismiss both the appeals. 6) The issue of negligence, factum of accident and involvement of the vehicles are not in dispute in the present appeals and same are filed on limited grounds of liability and quantum hence both the appeals are required to be decided in narrow compass. 7) 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 preponderance of probabilities. The claimants have tendered their respective affidavits at Exhibit 36 and 37, wherein, all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief- examination and supported the claim petitions. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the complaint at Exhibit 44, panchnama at Exhibit 45, Vehicle particulars issued by p. 5 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department, Mehsana in respect of Accent Car at Exhibit 48, charge-sheet filed against opponent no.1 at Exhibit 49, Disability Certificates at Exhibits 50 and 55, Insurance Policy at Exhibit 39, and after perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant of MAC Petition No.176 of 2018 who was riding the motorcycle is negligent to the extent of 20%, whereas, the opponent no.1 who was driving Accent car is held negligent to the extent of 80% in causing the accident. 8) The learned Tribunal has observed that the opponent no.3 – Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground that on 29.04.2018 the vehicle bearing Reg. No.GJ-02- CG-7623, was registered in the name of Mayurdhwajsinh Jayendrasinh Chauhan i.e. opponent no.2. The particulars of the said vehicle is produced at Exhibit 48 which reveals that the Accent car was duly insured with Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., and the third party insurance was valid from 27.05.2017 to 26.05.2018 which was covering the date of the accident i.e. 29.04.2018. The Insurance Policy at Exhibit 39 which is in the name of Mehulkumar Bhogilal Raval i.e. opponent no.2.1, was bearing validity from 24.01.2018 to 23.01.2019 which was covering the date of the accident i.e. 29.04.2018. Hence, in absence of any contract between the insured and p. 6 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 insurer the Insurance Company was exonerated only on the ground that the transferee failed to transfer the insurance policy of the Accent car in his name. 9) A perusal of record reveals that as per the vehicle particulars issued by the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department, Mehsana at Exhibit 48, the respondent no.2 herein - Mayurdhwajsinh Jayendrasinh Chauhan, is the registered owner and insurer is Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The said third party insurance policy was in force from 27.05.2017 to 26.05.2018, and the accident took place on 29.04.2018, accordingly, the said policy was effective on the date of accident. It further reveals that the previous owner of the said car was respondent no.2.1 – Mehulkumar who transferred the ownership of the said car on 16.04.2018 in the name of respondent no.2. Accordingly, on 29.04.2018, i.e. date of accident the respondent no.2 herein was 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’. Page 6 of 9 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 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 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.” 10) 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 p. 8 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 on the date of accident, the respondent no.2.1 had already transferred the ownership of the Accent Car in the name of respondent no.2 who is reflected as owner in the record of RTO Authority, hence, the liability of registered owner to pay the compensation is not be absolved. Moreover, the Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company being insurer of the said car as on the date of accident, was neither joined as a party in the claim petition nor in the present appeal, whereas, the Insurance Policy at Exhibit 39, is a comprehensive policy which was issued by the respondent no.3 – HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., in the name of Mehulkumar Bhogilal Raval, i.e. respondent no.2.1 who is the previous owner of the car, was not the registered owner on the date of accident as per the record of RTO at Exhibit 48. Hence, the ownership of the car was with the registered owner even at the time of accident and it is his liability to compensate the victims in the accident which also has to be indemnified by the insurer. 11) In view of the above and without entering into further discussion on merits, it is expedient to remit the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh decision with liberty to join the Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., as party respondent in both the claim petitions. Accordingly, the common judgment and award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims p. 9 C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026 Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.175 of 2018 and 176 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside. 12) The proceedings of MAC Petition Nos.175 of 2018 and 176 of 2018 are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with liberty to join the Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. After impleading the Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., as party respondent in both the claim petitions, the learned Tribunal shall decide the matters independently on its own merits qua liability only, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13) Record and proceedings be remitted to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. 14) Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI