Registered owner of a vehicle remains liable for motor accident compensation regardless of private sale agreements.

On April 20, 2015, the deceased (Chandrakant Aboti) was killed in a motor accident involving a Swift Car (GJ-12-AE-8932) driven rashly by opponent No. 4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kachchh at Bhuj, awarded Rs. 10,05,000/- with 6% interest, fastening liability on the appellant as the registered owner

The appellant appealed, contending he had sold the vehicle via an agreement to sell on October 30, 2012, to one Rayshi Malshi Maheshwari, and thus was not the owner at the time of the accident

Although the appellant appeared before the Tribunal through an advocate, he failed to file a written statement or produce the sale agreement during the original proceedings

Whether a person whose name is recorded as the registered owner in RTO records remains liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite an unregistered sale/transfer of the vehicle to a third party.

The court applied Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines "owner" as the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (2018) 1 ACJ 677, which held that for the purposes of the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority is the owner and is liable to compensate victims

The court also applied Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the mandatory procedure for reporting the transfer of ownership to the Registering Authority

The court rejected the appellant's plea for a remand based on the alleged 2012 sale agreement. It reasoned that the appellant was duly served and represented by counsel before the Tribunal but failed to lead evidence or file a written statement

The court distinguished the precedent Paresh Jayantilal Shah v. Minor Ayesha Abdulraheman Ansari, noting that in this case, the appellant had been granted full opportunity but failed to avail it

Applying the ratio of Naveen Kumar, the court determined that the law does not require claimants to "follow the trail of successive transfers"; rather, the "registered owner" is squarely liable

Since it was undisputed that the appellant remained the registered owner in the RTO records at the time of the accident, the transfer of physical possession or an unregistered agreement to sell did not absolve him of legal liability

The court directed the appellant and the driver (respondent No. 4) to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest within six weeks

The Civil Application for stay was disposed of as infructuous