Liability for motor accident compensation extends to registered owner, possessor, and dealer.

On September 15, 2018, Ku. Sonam Sahu was returning home on a scooter when an offending tractor (registration No. CG-06-GC-7757), driven by appellant No. 1, negligently collided with her scooter from the rear, causing grievous injuries from which she died on the way to the hospital.

The claimants, parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation, alleging the deceased was a 27-year-old tutor earning Rs. 30,000 per month.

The appellants (driver and possession holder) argued the deceased was negligent and that appellant No. 2 (possession holder) never possessed the offending vehicle.

Respondent No. 4 (dealer) stated that Lingraj Sahu (respondent No. 3) was the registered owner, but the vehicle was in possession of Radheshyam Patel (appellant No. 2).

Lingraj Sahu, the registered owner, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

The dealer's witness stated that Lingraj Sahu was the owner but Radheshyam Patel purchased the vehicle through a sale certificate dated December 7, 2018.

Radheshyam Patel's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement indicated the dealer recovered the tractor from Lingraj Sahu due to non-payment of installments and then sold it to Radheshyam Patel without Lingraj Sahu's consent.

No steps were taken to transfer the name in the registering authority's records from Lingraj Sahu.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,72,400/- and fastened liability jointly and severally upon the driver, possession holder, registered owner, and dealer.

The court applied the principle that liability for motor accident compensation should generally be fastened upon the registered owner of the vehicle.

It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Naveen Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar and Others (2018) 2 SCC 14, which defined "owner" as the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority, and held such person liable to pay compensation.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision by applying the rule that the registered owner is typically liable.

However, it reasoned that in this specific case, both the possession holder (Radheshyam Patel) and the dealer (M/s Swami Agro Engineering Works) were aware that Lingraj Sahu remained the registered owner, yet they proceeded with the sale transaction.

Despite this knowledge, no steps were taken to formally transfer the ownership in the registering authority's records.

Therefore, the court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in broadening the liability beyond just the registered owner to include the driver, possession holder, and dealer, given their respective roles and knowledge of the ownership status and transaction.

The court also found the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to be "just and proper."

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to fasten liability jointly and severally upon the driver, possession holder, registered owner, and dealer of the offending vehicle.