SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
Gargesh Kumar  - Appellant 
Versus
Aditya & Anr. – Respondents
FAO No. 75 of 2025 a/w FAO No. 84 of 2025
Decided On : 28-10-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Nimish Gupta, Adv., Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Adv.

The registered owner of a vehicle is solely liable for compensation in motor accident cases under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, not the driver.

Headnote:This judgment addresses appeals concerning an order from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerning interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court clarifies liability based on the definition of 'owner' according to Section 2(30) and reaffirms that the registered owner is solely liable for compensation due to an accident. Key issues included the erroneous attribution of liability to the driver. The judgment concludes with the modification of the Tribunal's order to hold only the registered owner liable for the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

Since both these appeals arise out of a common order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant(s) against the impugned order dated 16.01.2025, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in CMA No. 465/2022, whereby respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle (appellant(s) herein) were held jointly and severally liable to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”).

3. FAO No. 75 of 2025 has been filed by Gargesh Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, on the ground that learned Tribunal below had erroneously fastened the liability upon him, who admittedly was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, as it is the owner of the vehicle who alone is liable to pay the compensation.

4. FAO No. 84 of 2025 has been filed by Sukhwinder Singh, owner of the offending vehicle, on the ground that learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate that since he has exchanged the offending vehicle with “Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd.” GT Road near Sherpur Chowk Ludhiana for new Maruti Swift Car, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation out of the use of said vehicle.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record, carefully.

6. Prior to omission by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, (32 of 2019), w.e.f. 1-4-2022, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) used to deal with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988 which reads as under:

“140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub- section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:”

7. On a plain reading of this provision, it is abundantly clear that where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall jointly and severally, be liable to pay comp








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top