NADIM MOHLE NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1958 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Shri Ghanshyam Nirmalkar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Balco Nagar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner of The offending motorcycle No. Cg-12-Aa-8064) (Non-

Applicant No. 02). ... Appellant versus

1 - Mahadev Ajgalle S/o Shri Gangaram Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Dhamalpur, P.S. Gidhauri, Tahsil Tundra, Dist - Balodabazaar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2 - Bhuneswar Sahu S/o Shivnath Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Motipur, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Shahil Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. O. P. Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

06/02/2026

1. The appellant/owner has challenged the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims learned Tribunal, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 64/2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,62,950/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of the death of Duleshwari Bai Ajgalle and fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending motorcycle as the said motorcycle was not insured.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2022, at around 21:30 hours, when Duleshwari Bai was returning to village Dhamalpur, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-12-AA-8064, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed her. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimant, who is husband of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it was pleaded the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 57 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4. The owner of the motorcycle filed his reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. He pleaded that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving licence.

5. The insurance company also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition.

6. The learned Tribunal framed the issues, parties led their evidence, and thereafter the impugned award was passed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the offending motorcycle was sold to one Shatrughan Lal Sahu in the year 2017 and the motorcycle was in his possession at the relevant time. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening liability upon the appellant. He would argue that Shatrughan Lal Sahu was not impleaded as a respondent in the claim petition and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Driver would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10.It is an admitted fact that the offending motorcycle was not insured on the date of the accident. Though a plea was taken by the appellant that the motorcycle was sold to one Shatrughan Lal Sahu in the year 2017 but no documentary evidence was produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate the said plea. It is also not in dispute that the name of Shatrughan Lal Sahu was never transferred in the registration certificate of the motorcycle.

11.The registration certificate of the offending motorcycle clearly reflects the name of the appellant herein as the registered owner.

12.Shatrughan Lal Sahu (NAW/5), in his statement, admitted that he had purchased the offending motorcycle and subsequently sold it to a showroom in exchange offer.

13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar &

Others, reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 983 has categorically held that the registered owner of t