Holding

The Tribunal’s award is quashed and the case remitted for fresh determination of liability, with the registered owner liable and the insurer to be joined as a respondent.

Summary

The appellants, injured in a road accident on 29‑04‑2018 involving their motorcycle and the opponent's car, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award which partially compensated them but exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the policy had been transferred. The appellants argued that the registered owner of the car remained liable under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the insurer should also be liable. The High Court examined the evidence, noted that the car was registered in the name of the new owner at the time of the accident and that the third‑party insurance was in force, and relied on Supreme Court precedents interpreting "owner". It held that the registered owner cannot escape liability and that the insurer must be impleaded. Consequently, the Tribunal’s award dated 24‑10‑2024 was set aside and the matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with the insurer joined as a respondent.

Issues considered

The liability of the registered owner of the vehicle under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act despite a recent transfer of ownership.
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the policy was in the name of the previous owner at the time of the accident.
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the quantum of compensation, including future loss and non‑pecuniary loss.
Whether the Tribunal correctly apportioned negligence between the parties.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173, s. 2(30)

Subjects

motor accident claimowner liabilityinsurance liabilitySection 2(30) Motor Vehicles Actcompensation quantumappeal under Section 173third‑party insurance

Judgment

C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2276 of 2025

With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2241 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

============================================
RAMSINH LALSINH RATHOD
Versus
JAYDEEPSINH JORAVARSINH CHAUHAN & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,2.1
============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 09/02/2026

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

With consent of both the learned Advocates the matter is

taken up for final hearing.

Since both the appeals are arising out of the same

accident and the grounds and issue involved in the appeals are

common, they have been heard together and are being decided

by this common judgment. The First Appeal No.2276 of 2025

arises out of MAC Petition No.176 of 2018 and First Appeal

Page 1 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

No.2241 of 2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.175 of 2018.

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment

and award dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (which

shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in

Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.176 of 2018 and 175 of 2018,

the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present

appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants –

original Claimants and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Gadhia, for

the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. The respondent

nos.1, 2 and 2.1 are duly served but remained absent. Perused

the original record and proceedings.

3) It is the case of the appellants that on 29.04.2018, the

applicants – original claimants – appellants herein, were

returning towards Village Khedavada on motorcycle bearing Reg.

No.GJ-02-AQ-6875 driven by the applicant of MAC Petition

No.176 of 2018 and the applicant of MAC Petition No.175 of

2018 was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. At that

time, the opponent no.1 came driving his Accent car bearing

Reg. No.GJ-02-CG-7623 from the opposite side, that is

Page 2 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

Khedavada side, rashly and negligently. Therefore, the

applicants stopped their motorcycle beside the road, but the

opponent no.1 came on the wrong side and dashed with the

motorcycle of the applicants and caused the alleged accident. As

a result of which the applicants had fallen down on the road and

sustained injuries including fracture and other multiple injuries

resulting into disability. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC

Petitions seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal

after appreciating the evidence produced on record the has

partly allowed both the claim petitions.

4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the

learned Tribunal has committed error by exonerating the

Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the

insurance policy was transferred in the name of the subsequent

purchaser. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred

in considering the income of the appellants on notional basis and

not awarding future prospect. He has further submitted that

Tribunal has awarded meagre amount towards non pecuniary

loss which is required to be enhanced.

5) Learned Advocate for respondent no.3 – Insurance Company has

opposed the present appeals on the ground that the learned

Tribunal has properly appreciating the evidence produced on

record and awarded just, legal and proper compensation hence

Page 3 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

no interference is required to be called for. He has further

submitted that the vehicle was already sold and in absence of

any contract between the insured and insurer then the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the learned

Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the

liability to pay compensation to the appellants. With these

submissions he has requested to dismiss both the appeals.

6) The issue of negligence, factum of accident and involvement of

the vehicles are not in dispute in the present appeals and same

are filed on limited grounds of liability and quantum hence both

the appeals are required to be decided in narrow compass.

7) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going

through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has

considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in

the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC

2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in

2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on

preponderance of probabilities. The claimants have tendered

their respective affidavits at Exhibit 36 and 37, wherein, all the

facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-

examination and supported the claim petitions. The learned

Tribunal has taken into consideration the complaint at Exhibit

44, panchnama at Exhibit 45, Vehicle particulars issued by

Page 4 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department, Mehsana in respect of Accent

Car at Exhibit 48, charge-sheet filed against opponent no.1 at

Exhibit 49, Disability Certificates at Exhibits 50 and 55,

Insurance Policy at Exhibit 39, and after perusing the evidence

the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant of

MAC Petition No.176 of 2018 who was riding the motorcycle is

negligent to the extent of 20%, whereas, the opponent no.1 who

was driving Accent car is held negligent to the extent of 80% in

causing the accident.

8) The learned Tribunal has observed that the opponent no.3 –

Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on the

ground that on 29.04.2018 the vehicle bearing Reg. No.GJ-02-

CG-7623, was registered in the name of Mayurdhwajsinh

Jayendrasinh Chauhan i.e. opponent no.2. The particulars of the

said vehicle is produced at Exhibit 48 which reveals that the

Accent car was duly insured with Iffco – Tokio General Insurance

Co. Ltd., and the third party insurance was valid from

27.05.2017 to 26.05.2018 which was covering the date of the

accident i.e. 29.04.2018. The Insurance Policy at Exhibit 39

which is in the name of Mehulkumar Bhogilal Raval i.e. opponent

no.2.1, was bearing validity from 24.01.2018 to 23.01.2019

which was covering the date of the accident i.e. 29.04.2018.

Hence, in absence of any contract between the insured and

Page 5 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

insurer the Insurance Company was exonerated only on the

ground that the transferee failed to transfer the insurance policy

of the Accent car in his name.

9) A perusal of record reveals that as per the vehicle particulars

issued by the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department, Mehsana at

Exhibit 48, the respondent no.2 herein - Mayurdhwajsinh

Jayendrasinh Chauhan, is the registered owner and insurer is

Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The said third party

insurance policy was in force from 27.05.2017 to 26.05.2018,

and the accident took place on 29.04.2018, accordingly, the said

policy was effective on the date of accident. It further reveals

that the previous owner of the said car was respondent no.2.1 –

Mehulkumar who transferred the ownership of the said car on

16.04.2018 in the name of respondent no.2. Accordingly, on

29.04.2018, i.e. date of accident the respondent no.2 herein was

the registered owner as per Section 2(30) of the MV Act. In this

regard reference is required to be made to the judgment of

Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay kumar and others, reported in AIR

2018 Supreme Court 983, held in para 12 reads 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’.

Page 6 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

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.”

10) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bihari

Gupta Vs. Manmet & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 948,

referred the aforesaid Three-Judges Bench decision. Therefore,

as per Section 2(30) of MV Act owner means a person in whose

name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes

of the Act, would be treated as the owner. In the present case

Page 7 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

on the date of accident, the respondent no.2.1 had already

transferred the ownership of the Accent Car in the name of

respondent no.2 who is reflected as owner in the record of RTO

Authority, hence, the liability of registered owner to pay the

compensation is not be absolved. Moreover, the Iffco-Tokio

General Insurance Company being insurer of the said car as on

the date of accident, was neither joined as a party in the claim

petition nor in the present appeal, whereas, the Insurance Policy

at Exhibit 39, is a comprehensive policy which was issued by the

respondent no.3 – HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., in the

name of Mehulkumar Bhogilal Raval, i.e. respondent no.2.1 who

is the previous owner of the car, was not the registered owner

on the date of accident as per the record of RTO at Exhibit 48.

Hence, the ownership of the car was with the registered owner

even at the time of accident and it is his liability to compensate

the victims in the accident which also has to be indemnified by

the insurer.

11) In view of the above and without entering into further discussion

on merits, it is expedient to remit the matters to the Tribunal for

a fresh decision with liberty to join the Iffco – Tokio General

Insurance Co. Ltd., as party respondent in both the claim

petitions. Accordingly, the common judgment and award dated

24.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Page 8 of 9
C/FA/2276/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026

Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, in Motor Accident

Claim Petition Nos.175 of 2018 and 176 of 2018, is hereby

quashed and set aside.

12) The proceedings of MAC Petition Nos.175 of 2018 and 176 of

2018 are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with

liberty to join the Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. After

impleading the Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., as party

respondent in both the claim petitions, the learned Tribunal shall

decide the matters independently on its own merits qua liability

only, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of this order.

13) Record and proceedings be remitted to the Tribunal concerned

forthwith.

14) Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/02/2026 14:32:50

Page 9 of 9