Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 155 (RAJ)

Prahlad Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Shri Ramprasad Jat v. Dinesh Kumar Meena, S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay

2026-02-05

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2026
ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the Claim Petition No. 504/2016 filed by the claimant-appellant (for short, ‘the claimant’) has been partly allowed and the respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Udaipur has been exonerated from its liability. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that on the date of incident, i.e. 24.03.2016, the claimant was riding on a motor bike bearing No. RJ-14-BW-0358 as a pillion, however, at around 4:30 P.M in the evening, the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. respondent No. 1, while driving the jeep bearing No. RJ-27-U-0905, in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident due to which the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries on his body. In the aforesaid accident, he also sustained a fracture on left leg, which was determined as 30% permanent disability. Counsel submitted that a claim petition was submitted by the claimant against the respondents for getting adequate compensation before the Tribunal. Counsel submitted that while passing the aforesaid impugned award, the Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Udaipur from its liability to pay compensation on a technical count that although the offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 3 but the same was not registered in the name of the private individual and the offending vehicle was put to auction, wherein it was purchased by the respondent No.2. Hence, the Tribunal held that the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation and on this count alone the respondent No. 3 was exonerated from his liability. Counsel submitted that unless and until, the registration of the vehicle is transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser, the person who is having his name in the Registration Certificate is only liable and responsible, if such vehicle meets with an accident. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 . In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 . Counsel further submitted that while assessing the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has held that the claimant was a semi-skilled person and applying the notification/circular issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan, his minimum wage was determined as Rs. 211/- per day and while taking into account 26 working days in a month, his monthly income was determined as Rs. 5,486/-. Counsel submits that this Court in the case of Nandu Devi and Anr. Vs. Sohanlal and Ors. /b>., while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2017 on 23.02.2022, has held that in such like matters, the monthly income of a daily wager is required to be calculated for 30 days instead of 26 days. He further submitted that the injured has sustained a fracture on his left leg and has also sustained 30% permanent disability and remained in hospital for a considerable time. In such circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, i.e. Rs. 5000/-, is a very meagre amount and on these counts, the impugned award needs to be suitably enhanced. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the respondent No. 3 from his liability to make payment of compensation to the claimant because although the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent No. 3-i.e. Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, but the same was sold in a public auction to the respondent No. 2, prior to the date of the accident. Thereafter, under these circumstances, the respondent No. 3 could not be treated as owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3 from his liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Counsel further submitted that under these circumstances, the instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Counsel further submitted that under these circumstances, the instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that an accident occurred on 24.03.2016, wherein the claimant was riding a motor bike bearing No. RJ-14-BW-0358 as a pillion and the same was struck by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. RJ-27-U-0905, i.e. respondent No. 1. In the said accident, the claimant received grievous injuries, as observed above. In such circumstances, a claim petition was submitted by the claimant before the Tribunal seeking compensation wherein respondent No. 3 was also arrayed in the cause title as the registered owner of the offending vehicle. While partly allowing the said claim petition, the Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No. 3 from his liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the technical count that on the date of the accident, the respondent No. 2 was in possession of the offending vehicle as the same was purchased by him from respondent No. 3 in the auction proceedings. 6. Now, the question which remains for consideration before this Court is whether in such like matters, the respondent No. 3 who is the original owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimant or not? 7. A perusal of the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle clearly indicates that name of the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur has been mentioned on it, as the original owner of the offending vehicle. This fact is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was put to public auction and the same was purchased by respondent No. 2 in the auction proceedings. Furthermore, this fact is also not in dispute that as on the date of the accident or even thereafter, the registration of the offending vehicle was not transferred in the name of the respondent No.2 and in the meantime, the offending vehicle met with an accident on 24.03.2016. 8. Furthermore, this fact is also not in dispute that as on the date of the accident or even thereafter, the registration of the offending vehicle was not transferred in the name of the respondent No.2 and in the meantime, the offending vehicle met with an accident on 24.03.2016. 8. The controversy involved in this appeal has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (Supra) wherein it has been categorically held that if the vehicle has been transferred in favour of any person and the registration of the same remains in the name of the earlier registered owner in the records of the registering authority, then he shall not stand absolved from his liability. A detailed proposition of law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para Nos. 13,14 and 15 which read as under:- “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 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 Act of 1939. 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. 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 and Purnya Kala Devi. 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 Dr T V Jose, 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 the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law must be fulfilled. 15. For the above reasons we allow the appeal and direct that the liability to compensate the claimants in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal will stand fastened upon the First respondent. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 9. Considering the above proposition of law, as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra) and looking to the material aspect of the matter that the registration of the offending vehicle is still lying in the name of respondent No. 3 in the records of the registering authority, this Court finds that the Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the respondent No. 3 from his liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the liability of respondent No. 3, while deciding the issue no. 2 and 3 stands modified. 10. Accordingly, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the liability of respondent No. 3, while deciding the issue no. 2 and 3 stands modified. 10. Now, this Court shall proceed to deal with the other submissions made by counsel for the claimant, particularly that the claimant is entitled to get compensation by determining his minimum wages for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. This issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi (supra), after relying upon the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh and Ors. Vs. Barkat Singh and Ors. /b>. reported in 2012(2) MACT Raj. 692 wherein it has been held that the monthly income of a daily wager is to be assessed for 30 days instead of 26 days in a month. 11. Looking to the fact that the claimant has suffered fracture on his left leg and has sustained 30% permanent disability and he also remained in hospital for a considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, under the head of pain and suffering, is very meagre and the claimant is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to get the following amount of compensation, as reproduced in the chart hereunder: Hospitalisation Charges (for 15 days) Rs.600 X 15 = Rs. 9000/- Medical Bills Rs. 1,33,591/- Nutrition Charges Rs. 2,000/- Loss of Income during treatment (1 month) Rs. 211 X 30 = Rs. 6330/- Monthly income (along with 40% future prospects) Rs.211 X 30 = Rs.6,330/- Rs. 6330/- + Rs. 2532/- = Rs. 8,862/- Annual income Rs. 8,862 X 12 = Rs. 1,06,344 Multiplier to be applied 18 Rs. 1,06,344 X 18 = Rs.19,14,192/- Loss of Income (owing to 30% disability) Rs. 19,14,192 X 30/100 = Rs. 5,74,257.6/- Compensation for Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 7,75,178.60P/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,52,767/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,22,411.6P/- 12. 8,862 X 12 = Rs. 1,06,344 Multiplier to be applied 18 Rs. 1,06,344 X 18 = Rs.19,14,192/- Loss of Income (owing to 30% disability) Rs. 19,14,192 X 30/100 = Rs. 5,74,257.6/- Compensation for Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 7,75,178.60P/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,52,767/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,22,411.6P/- 12. The appeal accordingly stands partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,22,411.60p/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 13. It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the claimant and the remaining amount be deposited in a fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the claimant on monthly basis. 14. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of four weeks from today with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.