Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Kumar Patel vs Khirkumari Patel on 7 May, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.05.09
17:43:31 +0530
2025:CGHC:21015
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 626 of 2018
Rohit Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Juglal Patel Aged About 53 Years
R/o Village Parsada Bade, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Motor Cycle
No. CG13/4558)
--- Appellant
versus
1. Khirkumari Patel W/o Late Shri Ravishankar Patel Aged About 25
Years R/o Village Maluha, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh,
District Balaudabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.1)
2. Minor Shubham Patel S/o Late Shri Ravishankar Patel Aged
About 6 Months, Through His Mother Smt. Khirkumari Patel, R/o
Village Maluha, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District
Balaudabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.2)
3. Raghunath Patel S/o Late Shri Taranlal Patel Aged About 55
Years R/o Village Maluha, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh,
District Balaudabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.3)
4. Smt. Phoolbai Patel W/o Shri Raghunath Patel Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Maluha, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh,
District Balaudabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.4)
2
5. Lakhiram Patel S/o Shri Raghunath Patel Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Maluha, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District
Balaudabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.5)
6. Smt. Kuntibai W/o Late Shri Sahdev Gautam Aged About 65
Years R/o Village Rajpur, Police Station Sankra, Tahsil Pithaura,
District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.6)
7. Kanta Patel S/o Shri Laxman Patel Aged About 45 Years Caste
Aghariya, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Bamhani, Police
Station Basna, Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.13/4558)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 6 : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent 7 : Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Advocate
Kanta Patel S/o Laxman Patel, Aged About 47 Years Caste
Aghariya, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Bamhni, Thana
Basna, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver
Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. CG -13/4558)
---Appellant
Versus
1. Kheerkumari Patel W/o Late Ravishankar Patel, Aged About 27
Years R/o Village Maluha, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District
Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh)
2. Shubham S/o Ravishankar Patel, Aged About 2 Years 6 Months,
Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
Kheerkumari Patel, R/o Village Maluha, Thana And Tahsil
Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh)
3. Raghunath S/o Late Taran Lal Patel, Aged About 57 Years R/o
Village Maluha, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar
(Chhattisgarh)
4. Smt. Phoolbai Patel W/o Raghunath Patel, Aged About 52 Years
R/o Village Maluha, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda
Bazar (Chhattisgarh)
5. Lakhiram Patel S/o Raghunath Patel, Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Maluha, Thana And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar
(Chhattisgarh)
6. Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Late Sahdev Gautam, Aged About 67 Years
R/o Village Rajpur, Thana Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .......... (Claimants)
7. Rohit Kumar Patel S/o Juglal Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village Parsada Bade, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh......(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No.
C.G.-13/4558)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 6 : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent 7 : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
07.05.2025
1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the award dated
12.09.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (FTC), Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. H-
60/2016, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts, necessary for disposal of both the appeals, in brief, are
that on 01.07.2015, Ravishankar Patel (deceased) was going from
village Rajpur to village Pirda on his motorcycle Platina No. CG 06
G 1970. When he reached near rice mill of Bhikhapali, respondent
Kanta Patel driving the offending motorcycle bearing registration
No. CG 13 H 4558 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of
Ravishankar Patel, on account of which he suffered grievous
injuries on his head, face, mouth, hands and other parts of the
body. Ravishankar patel was taken to Balaji Super Specialty
Hospital, Raipur for treatment where he died during treatment on
04.07.2015. The claimants preferred an application before the
Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.57,20,000/- under
various heads. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence
and documents brought on record, awarded total compensation of
Rs.8,66,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of
application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their
irreparable loss against which both the appeals have been
preferred by the driver and the registered owner of the offending
motorcycle.
3. It is an undisputed fact that the registered owner of the offending
motorcycle was appellant Rohit Kumar Patel and the driver was
appellant Kanta Patel. According to the evidence presented,
Rohit Kumar Patel had sold the offending motorcycle to Kanta
Patel before the date of accident but his name was not
changed/transferred in the registration certificate. The offending
motorcycle was in the possession of Kanta Patel.
4. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned award, has held both the
registered owner Rohit Kumar Patel and the driver/physical owner
Kanta Patel liable for payment of compensation, against which
both the appeals have been filed.
5. Learned counsel for appellant Rohit Kumar Patel argues that the
vehicle in question was not in his physical possession and he had
sold the same before the accident. Hence, he is not liable.
6. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Naveen
Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 1, has clearly
held that the person whose name is reflected in the records of the
registering authority is the owner and in paragraphs 12 to 14
observed as under:
"12. The consistent thread of reasoning which
emerges from the above decisions is that in view of
the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section
2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor
vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the
Act, would be treated as the 'owner'. However, where
a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would
be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is
subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or
hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a
situation such as the present where the registered
owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but
continues to be reflected in the records of the
registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he
would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has
consciously introduced the definition of the expression
'owner' in Section 2(30), making a departure from the
provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939.
The principle underlying the provisions of Section
2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the
case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim
should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant
for compensation ought not to be burdened with
following a trail of successive transfers, which are not
registered with the registering authority. To hold
otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and
purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be
placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the
law. In the present case, the First respondent was the
'owner' of the vehicle involved in the accident within
the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay
compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly,
the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has
proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments
of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.
13. The submission of the Petitioner is that a failure to
intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under
Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the
vehicle. In Dr. T. V. Jose, this Court observed that
there can be transfer of title by payment of
consideration and delivery of the car. But for the
purposes of the Act, the person whose name is
reflected in the records of the registering authority is
the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section
2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law
must be fulfilled. "
7. In the present case, Rohit Kumar Patel is the registered owner and
his name was not changed/transferred in the records of the
registering authority. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid
judgment, there is no illegality or perversity found in the finding of the
Tribunal regarding liability of Rohit Kumar Patel.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argue that the accident occurred
due to the own negligence of the deceased. It is also argued that
the deceased came on the main road while driving the motorcycle
rashly and negligently, which caused the accident. If he is found to
have collided with the offending vehicle, it should be considered a
contributing negligence and the appellants should be exonerated
from their liability. In support of their argument, learned counsel for
the appellants, referred to the spot map prepared by the police
Exhibit P-6.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the
argument advanced by the appellants.
10. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant side are
Khirkumari, wife of the deceased, and Lakhiram, brother of the
deceased, both of whom are not spot witnesses. Dayaram has
been examined as a eye/spot witness from the claimant side who
has stated in his court statement that when Ravishankar was
driving his motorcycle slowly to his side, appellant Kanta Patel
came driving the offending motorcycle at a high speed on the main
road from Basna to Bilaigarh and hit the motorcycle of Ravishankar
due to which he fell unconscious on the spot. The said accident
happened due to the rash and negligent driving by Kanta Patel.
This statement has not been contradicted in his cross-examination.
The said statement is also confirmed by the charge sheet
presented by the Police. According to the charge sheet (Ex. P-1),
the driver of the offending vehicle Kanta Prasad Patel has been
prosecuted for the said accident, which he has also accepted in his
statement. As per the said charge sheet, Dayaram is a listed
witness and it is not stated that the said prosecution proceedings
have been challenged anywhere. Thus, there is no reason to doubt
the presence of Dayaram at the spot and his statement.
11. On the other hand, the driver of the offending motorcycle, Kanta
Patel has been examined from the appellants' side. In the written
statement submitted by the driver of the offending motorcycle, it is
not clearly mentioned as to whether the deceased's motorcycle
collided with the offending motorcycle or not, nor is it mentioned
whether the deceased was in an inebriated condition and collided
with a platform (चबूतरा). In the court statement, appellant Kanta
Patel, as the driver of the offending vehicle, deviating from his
written statement has stated that the deceased was driving his
motorcycle at a high speed under the influence of alcohol and
suddenly turned towards Basna on the main road, due to which he
could not control the vehicle and collided with the platform of the
culvert situated on the roadside. It is noteworthy that there is no
mention of the said statement in his written statement. In such a
situation, his statement is not found to be reliable and acceptable.
12. The second witness from the appellants' side, Paramatma Patel,
has been examined as an eye witness. Paramatma Patel has said
that he had gone to a welding shop located near Bhikha Pali turn
to get the window grill made, when he saw that a motorcyclist
coming from village Bhikha Pali at a very high speed, drove very
fast on Jagdishpur-Bilaigarh main road and turned towards Basna
(Jagdishpur), due to which the motorcycle collided with the
platform of the culvert situated on the roadside and he fell in the
middle of the road. It is noteworthy that this witness examined by
the driver of the offending vehicle is not a listed witness in the
charge sheet presented by the police. This witness has given
statement as per Kanta Patel, whereas there is no mention about
falling of the deceased after hitting the platform in the written
statement of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.
Parmatma Patel has also said that the incident occurred at 5:00
p.m. and a lot of people were present at the welding shop, but he
has not given any information about who were present there. He
doesn't even know who owns the welding shop or the names of
any of the people working there. Thus, his presence on the spot is
found to be completely suspicious. For all these reasons, no error
is found in the conclusion given by the Tribunal by not relying on
the statements of Kanta Patel and Parmatma Patel. Thus, the
argument raised by the appellants side that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased or that there
was any contributing negligence on his part is not found to be
acceptable.
13. Accordingly, both the appeals (MAC 626/2018 and MAC
1448/2018) are dismissed.
Cross Appeal
14. The cross appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement
of the compensation whereas the contention of learned counsel for
the driver and the registered owner is that excessive compensation
has been awarded in favour of the claimants.
15. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
16. Though it was claimed that the deceased used to earn 20 to 25
thousand rupees per month from agriculture work, no documentary
evidence in this regard has been brought on record. Therefore, the
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500 per
month. In this case, the accident occurred on 01.07.2015 and the
minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that time was
Rs.5787. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at
Rs.5787 per month as minimum wages instead of Rs.4,500. The
Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing
compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also
considering the age of the deceased to be 25-30 years, the future
prospects would be 40% of the income.
17. Respondent No. 5 is the brother of the deceased who was major at
the time of accident and respondent No. 6 Smt. Kuntibai is the
mother-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has not
considered them to be dependent on the deceased which seems
to be proper. The Tribunal has taken only 4 claimants i.e. the wife,
son and parents of the deceased to be dependents. So deduction
towards personal expenses would be 1/4th of the income instead
of 1/3rd as wrongly held by the Tribunal.
18. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC
680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is
being recomputed as below:-
Sl. Particulars Calculation
No.
1. Monthly income of the deceased 5787
2. Yearly income 69444
3. Future prospects(40% of the 27777.6
income)
4. Total 97221.6
5. Personal expenses (1/4th of the 24305.4
income)
6. Annual loss of dependency 72916.2 in round figure 72916
7. Total loss of dependency (applying 72916 x 18 = 1312488
multiplier of 18)
8. Funeral Expenses 15000
9. Loss of estate 15000
10. Spousal & filial consortium and love 40000 x 4 = 160000
& affection (Rs.40,000 to each
claimant)
Total compensation Rs.15,02,488
19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.15,02,488/- from
which after deduction of Rs.8,66,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal,
the enhancement would be Rs.6,36,288/-.
20. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of
Rs.6,36,288/- in addition to what is already awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the
date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned
award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the
conditions shall remain intact.
21. In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the driver and the
registered owner, stand dismissed. The cross appeal of the
claimants stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
22. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
"the enhanced amount" in the cross - appeal as against the award
made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi
Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be
availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the
concerned area wherein the claimants reside.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
