1 2026:CGHC:17832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 287 of 2021 Sudama Nahak Son Of Arkhit Nahak Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Kapildhara Colony, Bijuri, Quarter No. Mq/81, P.S. Bijuri, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Scorpio Bearing Registration No. Cg-10 F 7756), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smita Nohale @ Rani Nohale Daughter Of Late Arun Kumar Mohale Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Chhind Dafai North Jhagrakhand, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through Power Of Attorney Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Son Of Badri Gupta, Resident Of Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramsajivan Yadav Son Of Sanjhelal Yadav Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Daldal Ward No. 08, Bijuri, P.S. Bijuri, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) (Non Applicant No. 2), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Neeraj Kumar Sahu Son Of Santosh Prasad Sahu Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Bhawnihatola, Ward No. 15, Bijuri, P.S. Bijuri, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) (Non Applicant No. 3), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 20.04.2026 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 01.01.2021 passed by the learned First Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 14/2017, whereby compensation of Rs. 10,85,708/- has been awarded on account of the death of Usha Nohale and Mamta Nohale in a motor accident. 2) The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 29/07/2016 at about 9:00 PM, respondent No. 1 was riding her motorcycle, carrying her mother (deceased) Usha Nohale and her sister Mamta Nohale, proceeding cautiously towards Lohsara. When they reached in front of the house of Ward No. 6 Councillor Abdul Ali at Bijuri, the offending vehicle, i.e., Scorpio bearing registration No. CG 10 F 7756, driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their motorcycle. As a result, respondent No. 1 and the said deceased sustained grievous injuries; Usha Nohale died on the spot, while Mamta Nohale succumbed to injuries on 23/08/2016 during treatment at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, after being referred from Manendragarh and Ambikapur. Respondent No. 1 also sustained multiple fractures in her right leg and underwent surgeries, including insertion of rods, resulting in permanent disability. A report was lodged at Police Station Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.), and offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and Sections 146/196 and 39/192 of the MV Act were registered against respondent No. 3. 3) As per the pleadings, respondent No. 1, aged 24 years, was working as a tuition teacher earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Her mother, aged 58 years, was receiving pension of Rs. 3,000/- per month, and her sister, aged 28 years, was running a boutique earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. A claim of Rs. 80,00,000/- was filed. 3 4) The appellant, in his written statement, denied liability contending that although the vehicle was registered in his name, it had already been sold to respondent No. 2 prior to the accident and possession along with documents had been handed over. It was further contended that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased and that the accident occurred due to her own negligence. 5) Respondent No. 2 denied involvement, stating that the alleged sale transaction was cancelled and he had no concern with the vehicle. It was further contended that the vehicle was stationary due to a puncture and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. 6) Respondent No. 3 denied the allegations, except stating that the vehicle was stationary, and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 7) The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,85,708/- and held that respondent No. 2 was not the registered owner on the date of the accident and was, therefore, not liable. Liability was fastened jointly and severally upon the appellant (registered owner) and respondent No. 3 (driver). 8) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the offending vehicle stood registered in the name of the appellant, the same had already been sold to respondent No. 2 prior to the date of the accident, and possession along with relevant documents had been handed over. It is contended that respondent No. 2 was in actual control and use of the vehicle at the relevant time; therefore, the appellant cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation. Accordingly, it is prayed that 4 the impugned award, to the extent it fastens liability upon the appellant, be set aside. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 10)The sole ground urged in the present appeal is that the vehicle had allegedly been sold prior to the accident and was not in the possession or control of the appellant; hence, he cannot be held liable. However, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle continued to be registered in the name of the appellant on the date 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 motor accident cases is fastened upon the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered with the competent authority. 11)In view of the above, the contention of the appellant is untenable. Since the appellant was the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, he cannot escape liability. This Court finds no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyoti