Pickup’s Registered Owner Remains Liable For Teen’s Death Despite Claim He Sold Vehicle Before Crash: Chhattisgarh HC

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant, whose name remained on the vehicle registration records on the date of the accident, could avoid liability by asserting that he had previously sold and delivered the vehicle to the driver.

The court held

The Court dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award holding the driver and appellant jointly and severally liable for ₹6,63,000 with interest.

It also directed

The Tribunal’s record was directed to be returned for necessary action.

01Facts

On 6 December 2019, 15-year-old Shikhar Sahu died after a collision between the bullock cart he was riding in and a Tata D.I. pickup driven by Vijay Kumar Sahu.

¶ 2–4

His parents claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶ 2–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driver and Gulab Sahu, the pickup’s registered owner, jointly and severally liable and awarded ₹6,63,000 with interest.

¶ 2–4

Gulab Sahu appealed, contending that he had sold and delivered the vehicle to the driver before the accident, although the cheque issued as consideration had been dishonoured.

¶ 2–4

In his testimony, Gulab Sahu produced no sale agreement or other document establishing the transfer and admitted that the vehicle remained registered in his name.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant, whose name remained on the vehicle registration records on the date of the accident, could avoid liability by asserting that he had previously sold and delivered the vehicle to the driver.

¶ 4, 7–9

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s finding of the appellant’s joint and several liability warranted interference on appeal.

¶ 3–4, 9

03Law Applied

Under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is its “owner” for the purposes of the Act.

¶ 8

A purported transfer and delivery of the vehicle do not absolve the registered owner of liability where the registration records have not been changed; this rule serves the Act’s objective of ensuring that accident victims and their legal representatives are not left to trace unregistered transfers.

¶ 8

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1.

¶ 8

The appeal was brought under Section 173, and the compensation claim arose under Section 166 of the Act.

¶ 1, 3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 2 Section 50

04Reasoning

The appellant’s assertion that he had transferred the vehicle was unsupported by a sale agreement or other documentary evidence, and his testimony confirmed that he remained the registered owner on the accident date.

¶ 7

Applying Naveen Kumar, the Court held that an asserted sale and delivery could not displace the statutory significance of the registration records.

¶ 8–9

The appellant therefore remained liable as the registered owner, and the Tribunal’s finding was consistent with the evidence and applicable law.

¶ 8–9

05Holding

The Court dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award holding the driver and appellant jointly and severally liable for ₹6,63,000 with interest.

¶ 3, 9

The Tribunal’s record was directed to be returned for necessary action.

¶ 10

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF