Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2190
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Todaram S/o Shri Narayan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1480 Of 2008
Decided On : 29-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Prakash Jha on behalf of Mr. Ashvin Garg, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar on behalf of Mr. Kapil Gupta
Registered owners retain liability for motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, despite prior ownership transfers without registration updates.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 and Section 2(30) - Judgment modifying liability in a motor accident claim - Compensation awarded of Rs.1,35,000/- against the actual registered owner of the vehicle, not the appellant who claimed ownership - The appellant's claim of ownership was unsupported by the transfer of registration for the vehicle, thus imposing liability on registered owner as per statutory definition. (Paras 1, 14, 17, 18)
(B) Liability in motor accident claims - The registered owner remains liable irrespective of any transfer of possession without a registration transfer - Prior Supreme Court judgments reaffirm that liability lies with the registered owner as defined under the Act. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested liability for compensation following a fatal accident caused by a Jeep owned by a third party but claimed possession based on a sale agreement. The claimants sought damages for the death of the deceased caused by negligence. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The learned MACT Court wrongly imposed liability on the appellant while confirming the registered owner's statutory responsibility as per applicable law and precedent from higher courts. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: Determination of liability for compensation in a motor accident case when ownership is contested and previous sale of the vehicle is presented. (Paras 8, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner remains liable for compensation claims following an accident, emphasizing the distinction made by the legislature from previous definitions in repealed acts. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: Appeal partly allowed; liability shifted to the registered owner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. presentation of the parties' arguments regarding vehicle ownership. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of liability based on vehicle registration. (Para 7 , 12 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. definition of 'owner' under the motor vehicles act. (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal and modification of liability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
Order :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT against the judgment dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 and Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sikar in Accident Claim No.86/2005 titled as "Smt. Sajjan Kanwar & Anr. Vs. Mahendra Singh and Ors.", whereby the claim petition has been allowed and compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- has been awarded against the appellant.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant-Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and Mahendra Singh filed a claim petition stating that on 21.10.2002, the deceased Bhanwar Singh was going on foot to his village Godiyawas while Jeep bearing No.RRT 6757 coming from Suliyawas, hit him from behind. As a result of the said accident, Bhanwar Singh got seriously injured and during his treatment, he died. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep for which the claimants sought compensation.
3. Non-claimants No.1 and 2 (Mahendra and Todaram) filed their response and contended that they are not registered owner of the Jeep in question and the Jeep was owned by respondent/non-claimant-Jaidev. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. In the reply to the claim petition, Respondent No.3-Jaidev contended that the vehicle had already been sold to non-applicant No.2-Todaram, although the registration was not transferred but selling of the vehicle is well proved. Consequently, respondent No.3-Jaidev sought dismissal of the claim against him and the fastening of liability on non-claimant No.2-Todaram.
5. That non-applicant No.4-Raghuveer Singh did not appear, therefore, ex-parte was drawn against him.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned MACT Court has framed the following issues:
7. After considering the evidence led by the parties, including the testimony of AW.1-Ummed Singh, AW.2-Mohan Lal, NAW.1- Jaidev, and the documents exhibited as Ex.P.1 to P.14 and Ex.A.1 to A.6, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. While fixing the liability, the learned MACT Court observed that since the vehicle was sold to non-applicant No.2-Todaram on 08.10.1985, the liability to pay compensation fasten solely upon appellant-Todaram and no liability was imposed on respondent No. 3-Jaidev.
8. Aggrieved by this finding regarding the liability, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-non-applicant No.2- Todaram. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Court below erred in holding the appellant to be the registered owner of the vehicle and accordingly, the reasons given in the impugned order for holding the appellant liable are perverse and contrary to law. It is argued that based on the definition of "owner" under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , the liability ought to have been fastened upon respondent No. 3-Jaidev, who is the registered owner of the vehicle as per RC of the vehicle (Ex.12).
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Claimants (Respondents No. 1 and 2) argued that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, therefore, does not warrant any interference.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Jaidev supported the reasoning of the learned MACT Court, contending that the sale of the vehicle to the appellant on 08.10.1985 is well proved, coupled with the appellant's admission regarding the ownership of the vehicle in the reply to the notice under Secti
