Ram Niwas vs Desh Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209 FAO-4884-2002 (O&M)
Decided on : 08.09.2026
RAM NIWAS ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DESH RAJ AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Jangra, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
for appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Aditya Yadava, Advocate and
Ms. Hemlata, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 6.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-superdar who
was stated to be subsequent purchaser of offending vehicle (however the
ownership was never transferred in his favour in registration certificate)
being aggrieved by award dated 04.04.2002 passed by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’),
whereby appellant-superdar and respondent-driver were held liable to pay
compensation awarded to claimants on account of death of Dharambir
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ deceased ’) in motor vehicular accident dated
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -2-
02.04.1999 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent-driver while driving Jeep No.HR-36A-5174 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘ offending vehicle ’).
2. It was asserted by respondents-claimants that accident was
result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving
offending Jeep No.HR-36A-5174. FIR (Ex.P2) was duly registered by
eyewitness ASI Ram Kumar-PW3, who was accompanying the deceased at
the time of accident.
3. Respondents No.1 and 4 including appellant-superdar had
denied the accident. Respondent No.2-owner had denied his liability on the
ground that he had already sold the vehicle to appellant-superdar
(respondent No.4 before Tribunal) much prior to date of accident.
Respondent No.3 had also denied its liability to pay compensation on the
ground that it had only financed the vehicle and therefore had no concern
with offending vehicle and had no liability to pay compensation.
4. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of parties:-
i. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent
driving of Jeep No.HR-3A/5174 by respondent No.1 Desh
Raj ? OPP
ii. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are
entitled to and from whom ? OPP
iii. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR.
5. Issue No.1 as regards to rash and negligent driving on the part
of offending vehicle was decided against respondents and in favour of
claimants and accordingly compensation of Rs.8,68,000/- was found payable
to the claimants by appellant-superdar and respondent-driver.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -3-
6. Learned Tribunal had held the liability of appellant-superdar
and respondents-driver as under:-
“18. Now the question arises who is liable to pay that amount.
At the time of accident respondent No.2 was the registered
owner of the offending vehicle. But from the evidence it is
proved that he had already sold the same to respondent No.4.
After the accident, respondent No.4 had moved an application
Ex.P4 before the learned Magistrate for taking custody of the
vehicle on superdari as attorney of respondent No.2. When
respondent No.2 came to know of it, he appeared and made a
statement before the Magistrate that he had already sold the
said vehicle to respondent No.4 on 21.11.1997. Respondent
No.4 admitted that fact. Copy of the statement of respondent
No.2 recorded by Magistrate is Ex.R1 and the copy of statement
of respondent no.4 is Ex.R2. It was on the basis of their
statements, custody of the vehicle was given to respondent no.4
on superdari. Therefore, it is respondent no.4 who being the
owner is liable to pay the compensation alongwith respondent
No.1. Respondent No.3 cannot be fastened with liability to pay
the compensation because it had simply financed the offending
vehicle. Therefore, respondents No.1 and 4 are held liable to
pay the compensation jointly and severally. This issue is
answered accordingly.”
7. Learned counsel for appellant-superdar has claimed that
appellant-superdar is not liable to pay compensation not being registered
owner as it is only registered owner who can be held liable to pay
compensation along with driver. Reliance has been placed upon following
judgments:-
I. Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , 2018(2)
RCR(Civil) 74.
II. Brij Bihari Gupta Vs. Manmet and Ors. , 2025 AIR
Supreme Court 3750
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -4-
III. Savinder Singh Vs. Binder Singh and Ors. , 2024
Law Finder (P&H) 4121.
IV. Baljinder Singh Vs. Jaswinder Kaur and Ors. , 2025
AAC 54.
V. Kashmir Singh Vs. Rama Rani and Ors. , 2019 Law
Finder (P&H) 2528.
8. The sole argument on behalf of appellant-superdar is that he
being superdar is not liable to pay compensation as he is not registered
owner even though respondent No.2-owner had taken a plea that the
offending vehicle stood sold to appellant-superdar and possession was
delivered to appellant-superdar. Strong reliance has been placed upon
judgments passed by hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay
Kumar and Ors. (supra) and Brij Bihari Gupta Vs. Manmet and Ors.
(supra), to argue that even if at the time of taking vehicle on superdari, he
had represented himself to be subsequent owner even then the liability to
pay compensation is of registered owner.
9. As far as the ratio of judgments referred to by learned counsel
for appellant-superdar is concerned, same is not in doubt. It is not in doubt
that superdar cannot be made liable to pay compensation in place of
registered owner. The liability to pay compensation to the claimants is
always that of registered owner, however, whenever a vehicle is taken on
superdari from the Court, superdar cannot avoid his liability to extent of
value of vehicle as he was keeping the vehicle subject to right of lien
available to claimants. Though superdar may not be liable to pay the entire
compensation, however, he is liable to surrender the vehicle for recovery of
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal or the Court. The lien of
claimants over the vehicle cannot be defeated by its superdar by keeping the
same in his possession.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -5-
10. Whenever a case is decided against superdar, it is the duty of
superdar to surrender the vehicle immediately before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal so that lien over the same by claimant to recover the
compensation can be exercised. If a superdar holds the vehicle and fails to
surrender the same, especially when he is well aware about the award passed
by Tribunal, then he is bound to furnish amount equivalent to
indemnity/superdari bond which he had furnished before the Court while
taking the vehicle on superdari. Superdar cannot be allowed to enjoy
possession of vehicle for all times and defeat right of claimants to seek
compensation from sale/auction of offending vehicle. Superdar is only
custodian of offending vehicle upon which claimant has lien. The ownership
of offending vehicle remains in the name of registered owner and liability to
pay the entire compensation is also of registered owner, however, the
liability of superdar to the extent of value of offending vehicle, which is in
his possession, cannot be avoided unless possession of vehicle is
surrendered immediately on passing of award wherein the compensation has
been awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In present case also, appellant-superdar was one of the parties
i.e. respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. The award was passed in the year
2002, wherein he was made liable to pay compensation along with driver of
the offending vehicle, as noted above, however, despite having filed present
appeal, appellant-superdar has not surrendered the offending vehicle and
kept on using the same for next 24 years.
12. On the other hand, claimants are running after appellant-
superdar and respondent-driver to seek compensation since passing of award
in the year 2002 for accident which had occurred on the 02.04.1999. Not a
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -6-
single paisa has been paid to claimants as was asserted by learned counsel
for claimants. Therefore, in present case, it is appellant-superdar who had
defeated right of lien of claimants over the offending vehicle by keeping
offending vehicle in his possession and has not surrendered the same till date
despite passing of award dated 04.04.2002. Hence, liability of a superdar,
who is not a registered owner, can only be restricted to the extent of value of
offending vehicle which was released to be kept in his possession or to the
extent of amount payable under the superdarinama securing superdari.
13. In view of fact that offending vehicle must have become junk
with passage of time, it would be appropriate to restrict the liability of
appellant-superdar to the extent of amount secured by his superdiginama
before the Court while taking superdari of the vehicle. The appellant-
superdar has no liability to pay compensation being subsequent owner but is
liable to surrender offending vehicle taken on superdari/its value as
claimants had a lien over same to recover compensation, which appellant-
superdar has defeated by not surrendering the offending vehicle immediately
before the Tribunal on passing of award dated 04.04.2002.
14. None of the judgments referred to by learned counsel for
appellant-superdar has any applicability to the facts of present case and
regarding liability of present appellant. Accordingly, present appeal is partly
allowed holding that liability of appellant-superdar shall be to the extent of
value of offending vehicle/value secured in superdiginama filed at the time
of taking superdari over which claimants have lien to recover the
compensation. It is held that respondent-driver and respondent-registered
owner are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. The liability of
appellant-superdar would be equivalent to amount of security furnished at
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-4884-2002 (O&M) -7-
the time of superdari by appellant-superdar.
15. In order to secure rights of claimants it would be appropriate to
direct all the Courts specially Court of Judicial Magistrate to specifically add
condition that in case any claim petition is filed and allowed fixing liability
on owner/driver of offending vehicle, superdar shall immediately surrender
the vehicle before Court. Similarly, condition that owner/superdar seeking
permission to sell shall undertake to pay value of offending vehicle so
assessed by Court at the time of granting permission to sell in the event
liability to pay compensation is fixed upon owner, be imposed by the Courts
at the time of granting permission to sell offending vehicle during pendency
of criminal case/MACT claim petition. Copy of judgment be circulated to all
Courts under jurisdiction of this Court for compliance. Such condition shall
secure right of lien vested in claimants to recover compensation amount by
sale/auction of offending vehicle.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Sunil Chander
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.09 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document