1 2026:CGHC:18064 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 281 of 2019 1 - Smt. Shamshida Begam W/o Nazmuddin Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 315, Ward No. 41, Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chha琀�sgrh. .........Owner. .........Non Aplicant. No. 2 --- Appellant versus 1 - Kabir Das Manikpuri S/o Gigvijay Manikpuri Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Digvijay Manikpuri, R/o Shankarpur Ward No. 7, Town, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. ........Claimant. 2 - Anis Verma S/o Soman Verma Aged About 23 Years Driver, R/o Village Basula, P. S. And Tahsil Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. .............Non Applicant No. 1 3 - Nandkishore S/o Late Garib Das Aged About 32 Years R/o Shankarpur, Ward No. 7, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. ..........Non Applicant No. 3 4 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager O昀케ce At First Floor Anupam Nagar, New Circuit House Road 2 Near State Bank, Rajnandgaon, tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. 5 - Thaleshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Dakendra Sahu Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Parsadih, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, P. S. Suregaon, District Balod, Chha琀�sgarh. ..........Non Applicant No. 5. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 282 of 2019 1 - Shamshida Begam W/o Nazmuddin Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 315 ,ward No. 41 ,kelabadi Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chha琀�sgarh.(Owner), District : Durg, Chha琀�sgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Prince Manikpuri S/o Digviajay Manikpuri Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Digvijay Manikpuri R/o Shankarpur Ward No. 7,town Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 2 - Anish Verma S/o Soman Verma Aged About 23 Years Driver R/o Village Basulla ,police Sta琀椀on And Tahsil Ghumka ,district Ranjnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 3 - Nandkishore Manikapuri S/o Late Gariba Das Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years R/o Shankarpur Ward No. 7, Tahasil And Districit Rajnandgaon Chha琀�garh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 3 4 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager O昀케ce At First Floor Anupam Nagar New Circuit House Raod Near ,state Bank Rajanadaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 5 - Thalesh Kumar Sahu S/o Dakendra Sahu Vehicle Owner R/o Village Parsadih Tahsil Doundi Lohara ,police Sta琀椀on Suregaon District Balod Chha琀�sgarh., District : Balod, Chha琀�sgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 280 of 2019 1 - Shamshida Begam W/o Nazmuddin Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 315, Ward No.41, Kelabadi Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chha琀�sgarh....................Owner ---Appellant Versus 1 - Kumari Sukriya @ Supriya/ Sukriya Manikpuri S/o Digvijay Manikpuri Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Digvijay Manikpuri , R/o Shankarpur Ward No.7, Town, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 2 - Anis Verma S/o Soman Verma Aged About 23 Years Driver, R/o Village Basula, Police Sta琀椀on And Tahsil Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 4 3 - Nandkishore Manikpuri S/o Late Gariba Das Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years R/o Shankarpur, Ward No.7, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 4 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, O昀케ce At First Floor Anupam Nagar, New Circuit House Road, Near State Bank, Rajnandgaon , Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chha琀�sgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh 5 - Thalesh Kumar Sahu S/o Dakendra Sahu Vehicle Owner , R/o Village Parsadih, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, Police Sta琀椀on Suregaon, District Balod Chha琀�sgarh., District : Balod, Chha琀�sgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 279 of 2019 1 - Smt. Shamshida Begam W/o Nazmuddin Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 315, Ward No. 41, Kelabadi, Durg Tahsil And District Durg, Chha琀�sgarh. ............Owner. ..........Non Applicant No. 2. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Nandkishore @ Narendra Manikpuri S/o Late Garib Das Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years R/o Shankarpur, Ward No. 7, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. ..........Claimant. 5 2 - Anis Verma S/o Soman Verma Aged About 23 Years Driver, R/o Village Basula, P. S. And Tahsil Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. .............Non Applicant No. 1 3 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager O昀케ce At First Floor Anupam Nagar, New Circuit House Road Near State Bank, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chha琀�sgarh. ...............Non Applicant No. 3. 4 - Thalesh Kumar Sahu S/o Dakendra Sahu Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Parsadih, Tahsil Doundi, Lohara, P. S. Suregaon, District Balod, Chha琀�sgarh. ..........Non Applicant No. 4 --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rishi Sahu on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocates For Respondent(s)/ Claimants : Mr. Anil Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/ Insurance Company : Mr. Animesh Pathak on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Jus琀椀ce Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 21.04.2026 1. Since all these appeals have arisen out of a common accident and since common ques琀椀on of law and fact is involved in all these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, 6 heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant – Smt. Shamshida Begam under Sec琀椀on 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina昀琀er, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned awards dated 16/10/2018 passed by learned Second Addi琀椀onal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Cases No. 14/2017, 15/2017, 16/2017 and 17/2017 (similar but separate orders passed on the same date). 3. Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would make a solitary submission that the o昀昀ending vehicle was sold and transferred to one Thalesh Kumar Sahu on 12/09/2016 i.e. prior to the date of the accident and the sale deed was executed on 26/11/2016 vide Ex. D/1C, therefore, the appellant could not have been made responsible for payment of compensa琀椀on to the claimants and as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that accident occurred on 16/09/2016 whereas the transfer deed with regard to the o昀昀ending vehicle has been executed on 26/11/2016 (Ex. D/1C), therefore, on the date of the accident, appellant was registered owner of the vehicle and as such, the 7 Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensa琀椀on upon her. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par琀椀es, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspec琀椀on. 6. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the ma琀琀er of Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. 1 , may be no琀椀ced herein pro昀椀tably whereby their Lordships of the Supreme Court, having regard to de昀椀ni琀椀on of ‘owner’ under Sec琀椀on 2(30) of the Act of 1988, have clearly held that the person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered (i.e. whose name is re昀氀ected in records of Registering Authority) would be treated as “owner” of vehicle for the purposes of the Act of 1988 and it has been observed in paragraph 14 as under :- “14. The submission of the pe琀椀琀椀oner is that a failure to in琀椀mate the transfer will only result in a 昀椀ne under Sec琀椀on 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In T.V. Jose2, this Court observed that there can be transfer of 琀椀tle by payment of considera琀椀on and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of this Act, the person whose name is re昀氀ected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. The owner within the meaning of Sec琀椀on 3(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be ful昀椀lled.” 1 (2018) 3 SCC 1 2 T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 8 7. Since the appellant was the owner of the o昀昀ending vehicle on the date of the accident on 16/09/2016 and therea昀琀er, the vehicle was transferred to Thalesh Kumar Sahu on 26/11/2016 (Ex. D/1C), therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensa琀椀on upon the appellant in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the ma琀琀er of Naveen Kumar (supra). I do not 昀椀nd any merit in these appeals. 8. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed leaving the par琀椀es to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet