Failure to prove statutory transfer of vehicle ownership renders the registered owner liable for accident compensation.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging their son died on 11.02.2011 after being hit by an i10 car (MP-28-C-4703) owned/driven by the appellant.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Amarwara, awarded Rs. 2,92,000/- with interest.

The appellant challenged the award and an interlocutory order dated 18.07.2016 that permitted amendment of the claim petition.

The appellant contended he was medically unfit to drive due to a prior accident in 2010 and had sold the vehicle after it was declared a "total loss" before the date of the subject accident.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing an amendment to the claim petition after the completion of evidence and final arguments.

2. Whether the appellant had ceased to be the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident through a valid sale.

3. Whether the appellant’s medical condition and the police "Khatma" (closure) report in the criminal case absolved him of liability in the claim proceedings.

The court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to Tribunal proceedings, distinguishing it from the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.

Regarding ownership transfer, the court adhered to the statutory requirements for motor vehicle sales involving Form Nos. 29 and 30 and registration with the Registering Authority.

Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC was applied to exclude additional evidence that was not necessary for the determination of the controversy.

The High Court found that the amendment of the claim petition caused no miscarriage of justice as the appellant was given adequate opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

On the issue of ownership, the court held that mere bank deposit slips or insurance claim documents were insufficient; the appellant failed to produce a registered sale deed or statutory transfer documents (Forms 29/30) to prove he was no longer the legal owner.

Regarding the medical defense, the court noted that while treatment papers were filed, no medical expert was examined to prove total physical incapacity to drive on the accident date.

The court dismissed the relevance of the police closure report, stating that findings in criminal investigations do not bind a Claims Tribunal, and noted that minor discrepancies in vehicle color in the FIR did not outweigh the established evidence.

It held that the appellant remained the legal owner of the vehicle in the absence of statutory transfer records and failed to provide cogent medical evidence to disprove his ability to drive.

The application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was also rejected.

The record was ordered to be returned to the Tribunal within three weeks.