1 2026:CGHC:17682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 854 of 2022 Devnarayan Dewangan S/o Late Shri Sukhruram Dewangan Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Sargaon, P.S. Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Reg. Owner Of Vehicle Reg. No. C.G.-04-Ca-6306 As The Names Were Not Changed In Rto) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Gendlal Kosle S/o Late Udeyram Kosle Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Palaud, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant - Father Of Deceased) 2 - Shankar Sahu S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Sahu R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) (Subsequent Owner Of Vehicle Reg. No. C.G.- 04-Ca-6306) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 17.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the award dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 739/2018, whereby compensation of Rs. 12,19,400/- has been awarded on account of the death of Vishnu Kosle in a motor accident. 2 2) The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 02.03.2018, the deceased Vishnu Kosle, aged about 28 years, was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CA-6306 along with Vijay Dheedhi and respondent No. 2, Shankar Sahu, to celebrate the festival of Holi at village Kotni. While returning at about 7:00 PM, near Kalinga University, in front of Rajdhani Fuels, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, the motorcycle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in an accident. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them during treatment on the same day at about 10:00 PM. In connection with the incident, Crime No. 88/2018 was registered against respondent No. 2 under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge- sheet has been filed. 3) As per pleadings that the deceased was working as a security guard and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and was the sole breadwinner of the family. After his death, his wife, Ganga Bai Satnami, also expired on 27.04.2019. The claimant/respondent No. 1, therefore, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 25,48,000/-. 4) Respondent No. 2, in his written statement, denied the allegations and contended that the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself and that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, in which respondent No. 2 and another pillion rider also sustained injuries. It was further contended that he has been falsely implicated. The appellant/registered owner also filed his written statement contending that prior to the accident, the vehicle had already been sold to respondent No. 2, who was in possession and control of the vehicle, and therefore, he was not liable to pay compensation. 5) On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 12,19,400/- and held the appellant (registered owner) and respondent No. 2 (subsequent owner) jointly and severally liable. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the vehicle was registered in his name, it had already been sold to respondent No. 2 3 prior to the accident, who was in possession and control of the vehicle, and therefore, liability ought to have been fastened upon respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that since only the father of the deceased was dependent upon him, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses instead of 1/3. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned award and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper. 8) The only issue arising for consideration is whether the vehicle had been sold prior to the accident so as to absolve the appellant of liability. Admittedly, the vehicle stood registered in the name of the appellant at the time of the accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 1, liability in respect of a motor accident is fastened upon the person in whose name the vehicle is registered with the competent authority. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he is not liable cannot be accepted. 9) However, with regard to deduction towards personal expenses, it is evident from the record that the father of the deceased was the sole dependent. Though the deceased was married, his wife also expired subsequently and there are no other legal representatives of the decesed. In such circumstances, deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses would be appropriate. 10) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 6,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 2400/- 3. Total Income 8,400/- 4 4. Total Yearly Income 8,400 X12= 100,800/- 5. Personal expenditure (1/2) 100,800/2= 50,400/- 6. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency 50,400 X17= 8,56,800/- 7. Funeral Expenses as awarded by Tribunal 16,500/- 8. Loss of estate as awarded by Tribunal 16,500/- 9. Filial Consortium as awarded by Tribunal 44,000/- Total compensation 9,33,800/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 12,19,400/- to Rs. 9,33,800/-. The claimant shall be entitled to the modified amount of Rs. 9,33,800/-. The impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. All other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti