Doctor Das Mahant @ Lukky Das Mahant vs Kanhaiya Lal Sahu
2026 Latest Caselaw 549 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Doctor Das Mahant @ Lukky Das Mahant vs Kanhaiya Lal Sahu on 16 March, 2026

                                  1




                                                 2026:CGHC:12400
                                                               NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                      MAC No. 722 of 2020

1. Doctor Das Mahant @ Lukky Das Mahant S/o Asharam Mahant
   Aged About 27 Years Occupation Tractor Driver, Resident Of
   Village Litaipali, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh
   Chhattisgarh.(Driver),      District   :   Raigarh,     Chhattisgarh

2. Radhe Shyam Patel S/o Bodhram Patel Aged About 38 Years
   Caste Aghariya , Occupation Agriculture, Resident Of Village
   Kawarhiya, Police And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh. (Driver),
   District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                              ... Petitioner(s)

                              versus

1. Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Late Panchram Sahu Aged About 55
   Years Caste Teli Occupation Agriculture, Resident Of Village
   Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Sttion And Tahsil Pasaur,
   District Raigarh Chhattisgarh...(Claimant), District : Raigarh,
   Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Kanta Sahu W/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 47 Years
   Caste Teli, Occupation Housewife , Resident Of Village Ruchida,
   Post Office Puthkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District
   Raigarh Chhattisgarh...(Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. Lingraj Sahu S/o Baikunth Sahu Aged About 28 Years Caste Teli,
   R/o Village Amalibadar, Post Gerra, Police Station Sararipali,
   District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner), District :
   Mahasamund,                                      Chhattisgarh

4. Proprietor M/s Swami Agro Engineering Works, Main Road
   Bhatori (Basna), R/o Mahasamund Chhattistgarh. (Financer),
   District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
                                          ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

16.3.2026

1) By way of this appeal, driver and possession holder of the

offending vehicle have challenged the award passed by the

learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Raigarh in Claim Case No. 51/2019 dated 25.2.2020 whereby

learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.

11,72,400/- on account of death of Ku. Sonam Sahu and fastened

liability upon the driver, possession holder, registered owner and

dealer on the offending vehicle.

2) Facts of the present case are that on 15.9.2018, at about 5:00 pm

Ku. Sonam Sahu was returning to her home from Pusaur along

with her sister-in-law on scooter (Honda Activa). When they

reached Panhayat Bhawan Village Kensara, the offending vehicle

- Tractor bearing registration No. CG-06-GC-7757 being driven in

rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter from rear. In the

accident, Ku. Sonam sustained grievous injuries and died on the

way to hospital.

3) Claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed the claim case

claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,25,000/-

and pleaded that deceased was a 27 years old tutor earning Rs.

30,000/- per month. Appellants herein filed reply and took a plea

that deceased herself was negligent in driver the scooter and

offending vehicle never remained in possession of appellant No.

2. Dealer (respondent No. 4) of offending vehicle filed reply and

denied the averments made in claim petition and pleaded that

registered owner of offending vehicle was Lingraj Sahu

(respondent No 3) and it was in possession of Radheshyam Patel

(appellant No. 2). Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led

evidence and thereafter, award was passed.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Lingraj

Sahu, who was the registered owner of offending vehicle

remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. He further submits

that learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening

liability jointly and severally on the driver and possession holder of

offending vehicle. He has placed reliance on the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen

Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar and Others1 wherein 'owner' has

been defined and it is held that the person whose name is

reflected in the records of registering authority is the owner and

such person would be liable to make payment of compensation.

5) I have heard Mr. Dashore at length and perused the record with

utmost circumspection.

1. (2018) 2 SCC 1

6) It is not in dispute that deceased met with an accident on

15.9.2018 when her scooter was dashed by the offending vehicle

- Tractor from rear. Learned Tribunal assessed her monthly

income Rs. 8,000/- ; deducted 1/2 of the established income

towards personal expenses ; applied multiplier of 17 looking to the

age of deceased. Learned Tribunal also granted additional sum of

40% towards future prospect and Rs. 15,000/- each towards

funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, in total Rs. 11,72,400/-

has been awarded by learned Tribunal and in my opinion, learned

Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

7) Now coming to the liability part. Rajesh Goplani (NAW/1), the

dealer stated that Lingraj Sahu was the owner of tractor but said

vehicle was in possession of Radheshyam Patel as he purchased

the said vehicle from M/s Swami Agro Engineering Works through

sale certificate dated 7.12.2018 (Ex. P/24). Statement of

Radheshyam Patel under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded

during course of investigation wherein he stated that dealer

recovered the tractor from Lingraj Sahu as a result of non-

payment of installment. He further stated that tractor was sold by

the dealer without consent of Lingraj Sahu to Radheshyam Patel.

8) It appears that no steps were taken either by Radheshyam Patel

or by dealer for transfer of name even though they were aware

that said vehicle remained under the name of Lingraj Sahu in the

records of registering authority, therefore learned Tribunal

fastened the liability with the driver, possession holder, registered

owner and dealer of offending vehicle jointly and severally.

9) It is well-settled principle of law that liability should be fastened

with the registered owner of vehicle but in present case, since the

possession holder as well as dealer were aware that Lingraj Sahu

is the registered owner of offending vehicle but they went forward

with the sale transaction and the said vehicle was sold by the

dealer to Radheshyam Patel, therefore in my opinion, learned

Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the above-stated persons.

10) In view of the discussion made herein-above, no case is made out

to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal

fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

Ajinkya