The Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It held that the driver was liable as he had taken possession and documents, and found the compensation quantum justified despite income adjustments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 358 of 2017
---- Respondents
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board
24.06.2024
2
0984, driven by Appellant/Naresh Kannoje, allegedly owned by respondent No.5/Sanjay. As a result of the said accident, deceased/Itwari suffered grievous injuries due to which he died during treatment in Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur.
3
the appellant might have transferred his name in the RTO records. Nothing substantial has been brought on record by the appellant to suggest that the respondent No. 5 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Admittedly offending vehicle was in possession of appellant. In absence of any prudent evidence to suggest that respondent No. 5 was the registered owner, the contention of Mr. Dembra is rejected.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
H.Ansari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the owner or the driver is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was sold and documents transferred?
Is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal excessive and requiring reduction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh Kannoje
Smt. Punabai @ Puniya
Durgesh
Durgeshwari
Kaushaliya
Sanjay Uike
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
