Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Ritesh Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27923

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 780 of 2020

¶6

1 - Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Dumarbhawna, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Truck No. Cg 04 Zc 0396), (NonApplicant No. 2)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Minal Singh W/o Late Vinay Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Applicant No. 1)

¶10

2 - Rajwardhan Singh S/o Late Vinay Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian (Mother) Minal Singh, R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No 2)

¶11

3 - Smt. Bindu Singh W/o Late Lalbabu Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Applicant No. 3)

¶12

4 - Vikarm Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Sargawa (Machlipara), Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1)

¶13

SHUBHAM DEY

¶14

5 - Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Pujari Chamber Fourth Floor Pachfedi Naka Near Pujari Park Dhamtari Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurance Company Of The Pajero Vehicle No. Cg 15 Cw 9099) (Non-Applicant No – 3)

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶16

2

¶17

6 - Akbar Ansari S/o Ekhlakh Ahmad Alias Mohammad Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No 4)

¶18

MAC No. 776 of 2020

¶19

1 - Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner , R/o Village Dumarbhawna Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. Cg 04 Zc 0369), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - Smt. Santola Singh W/o Late Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶22

2 - Prashant Kumar Singh S/o Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶23

3 - Vivek Kumar Singh S/o Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶24

4 - Smt Nand Kuwar W/o Mast Ram Painkra Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶25

5 - Mast Ram Painkra S/o Late Dhansay Painkra Aged About 77 Years R/o Ward No 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶26

6 - Vikram Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver , R/o Village Sargawa (Machlipara), Police Station Gandhinagar , Tahsil

¶27

3

¶28

Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶29

7 - Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Pujari Chamber Fourth Floor Pachfedi Naka Near Pujari Park Dhamtari Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of The Pajero Vehicle No Cg 15 Cw 9099), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

8 - Smt. Minal Singh W/o Late Vinay Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶31

9 - Akbar Ansari S/o Ekhlakh Ahmad Alias Mohammad Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony Sitapur , Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

MAC No. 778 of 2020

¶34

1 - Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner , R/o Village Dumarbhawna Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No Cg 04 Zc 0369), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶35

---Appellant

¶36

Versus

¶37

1 - Manoj Singh S/o Dudhnath Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Chatriya Occupation Contractor R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶38

2 - Vikram Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver , R/o Village Sargawa (Majhlipara), Police Station Gandhinagar , Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶39

3 - Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office Pujari Chamber Fourth Floor Pachfedi Naka Near Pujari Park Dhamtari Road

¶40

4

¶41

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of The Pajero Vehicle No. Cg 15 Cw 9099), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶42

4 - Akbar Ansari, S/o Eklakh Ahmad Alias Mohammad Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony Sitapur , Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶43

--- Respondents

¶44

MAC No. 785 of 2020

¶45

1 - Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Dumarbhawna, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Truck No Cg 04 Zc 0369)

¶46

--- Appellant

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 - Ritesh Singh S/o Ranvijay Singh Aged About 32 Years By Caste Chatriya Occupation Contractor, R/o Mission Chowk Kedarpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶49

2 - Vikram Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Sargawa (Majhlipara), Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Non Applicant No 1)

¶50

3 - Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Pujari Chamber Fourth Floor Pachfedi Naka Near Pujari Park, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurance Company Of The Pajero Vehicle No. Cg 15 Cw 9099), ( Non-Applicant No. -3)

¶51

4 - Akbar Ansari S/o Eklakh Ahmad Alias Mohammad Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Non-Applicant No. -4)

¶52

	---Respondents
	MAC No. 780/2020
For Appellant : For Respondents No. :	Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttra
1 to 3	Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No. 5 :	Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav
	Mahiswar, Advocate MAC No. 776/2020

¶53

5

¶54

For Appellant : Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate MAC No. 778/2020 For Appellant : Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate MAC No. 785/2020 For Appellant : Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate

¶55

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶56

Order On Board

¶57

25/06/2025

¶58

These appeals are filed by the Appellant (owner of the offending vehicle) challenging the impugned award dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 91/2017 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,26,000/-.

¶59

Facts of the case, in brief, that on 9.1.2017, Ritesh Kumar Singh, Manoj Singh, Raja alias Vinay Singh, Bhesaj Kumar Singh were going to farm house of Raja alias Vinay Singh in a Pajero vehicle bearing registration number CG15-CW-9099. When they reached on Ambikapur-Pratappur Main Road, at that time truck bearing registration mark CG04-ZC-0369, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver on wrong side of road, badly dashed Pajero vehicle and caused accident. As a result, Manoj Singh, Bhesag Kumar Singh, Raja alias Vinay Singh, and Ritesh Kumar Singh sustained grievous injuries. When they were on the way to hospital, Bhesag

¶60

6

¶61

Kumar Singh and Raja alias Vinay Singh succumbed to injuries sustained by them.

¶62

Claimants/appellants in MAC No.776/2020 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1998 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.81,49,144/- against the death of Bhesaj Kumar Singh, pleading that on the date of accident, deceased was 44 years of age, he was posted as Sub Engineer in Public Works Department, Ambikapur and getting salary of Rs. 53,591/- per month. They were dependent on the earning of deceased, however, on account of his death in a road accident, they suffered loss of income. The Claims Tribunal by the award dated 11.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.70/2017, allowed claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.75,95,050/-, exonerated insurance company from its liability to indemnify insured and held the owner of offending vehicle liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants.

¶63

Claimants/appellants in MAC No.780/2020 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1998 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,11,00,000/- against the death of Raja alias Vinay Singh, pleading that on the date of accident, deceased was 37 years of age, he was Proprietor of M/s LBS Company and engaged in the business of contractor-ship. He was earning Rs.1,00,000/-per month from the said business. They were dependent on the earning of deceased, however, on account of his death in a road accident, they suffered loss of income. The Claims Tribunal by the award dated 11.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.91/2017, allowed claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,26,000/-, exonerated insurance company

¶64

7

¶65

from its liability to indemnify insured and held the owner of offending vehicle liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants.

¶66

Injured claimant/appellant in MAC No.778/2020 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1998 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal by the award dated 11.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.162/2017, allowed claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,38,775/-, exonerated insurance company from its liability to indemnify insured and held the owner of offending vehicle liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants.

¶67

Injured claimant/appellant in MAC No.785/2020 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1998 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,50,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the said accident on the ground that he is still undergoing treatment and due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him, he is unable to do any work. The Claims Tribunal by its award dated 11.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 163/2017, allowed claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,64,137/-, exonerated insurance company from its liability to indemnify insured and held the owner of offending vehicle liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals would submit that the appellant on the date of accident was not owner of offending vehicle. He sold it to Respondent No. 6/Akbar Ansari on 05.08.2005 and also, handed over its possession. The accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of Raja Singh @ Vinay Singh driver of the Pajero Vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the appellant.

¶69

8

¶70

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit that upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties have passed the impugned award. Claimants have also preferred separate appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident was a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was not insured and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the registered owner to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶71

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case.

¶72

So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to the negligence of the driver of Pajero Vehicle is concerned, the claimants before the Claims Tribunal have examined the injured witness who were also the occupant of the vehicle. In their evidence, they have categorically stated that at the time of accident, truck was coming from opposite direction, driven by its driver rashly and negligently, who hit the Pajero Car from the front side. In the F.I.R. Ex. P/2 lodged on the same date of the accident, same allegation has been mentioned showing that the offending truck driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the Pajro Car from its front side. In the aforementioned facts of the case, defence taken by the Appellant/owner of the offending vehicle that the Pajero Car hit the stationary truck is contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, it is not acceptable. Accordingly, it is repelled .

¶73

9

¶74

Further submission of counsel for the appellants is that he was the earlier registered owner of the offending vehicle, however, he had sold the offending Truck bearing registration no. CG 04 ZC 0369 to NonApplicant No. 4 on 05.08.2005 and further, at the time of sale, saleagreement was executed. From the aforementioned fact pleaded in reply to the claim application and the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, it is evident that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Even if the contention of the counsel for the appellant is to be accepted that he had sold the vehicle to the NonApplicant No. 4, however, in the records of the Regional Transport Authority, name of the appellant is recorded as the registered owner on the date of accident.

¶75

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (Supra) while considering the issue of fastening liability where the vehicle is transferred and the name of the registered owner is not changed, observed thus:-

¶76

“ 13. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the “owner”. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the

¶77

10

¶78

Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression “owner” in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Reshma, (2015) 3 SCC 679 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 379 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 408] and Purnya Kala Devi [Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 142 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 251 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 304].

¶79

14. The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In T.V. Jose [T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 94] , this Court observed that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is

¶80

11

¶81

the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled. ”

¶82

In the aforementioned undisputed facts of the case that the appellant is the registered owner as also, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (Supra) , I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant being the registered owner is having the first responsibility and liability to pay the amount of compensation.

¶83

For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned awards passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed .

¶84

Certified copy as per rules.

¶85

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶86

Dey

Upendra Kumar Singh v. Ritesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Singh v. Ritesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kavita Bai

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Saroj Agrawal

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kadam Kunwar

Samunbai Uraonv Vs Surendra Kumar Patel

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Minal Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Manoj Singh