The High Court reaffirms that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the person whose name is recorded as the “registered owner” is liable to compensate accident victims, even if the vehicle was driven by another without their consent, and even when not insured. This judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority for motor accident tribunals and subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana, with persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/170/1994 of USHA DEVI Vs SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010233991994 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation in motor accident claims |
| Questions of Law | Whether the registered owner of an uninsured vehicle can avoid liability to compensate claimants by alleging unauthorized use? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is liable to pay compensation to accident victims, notwithstanding claims that the vehicle was used without their consent. This flows from the statutory definition of “owner” in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which emphasizes the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Naveen v. Vijay (AIR 2018 SC 983) and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet (2025 INSC 948) are reiterated, confirming that the registered owner’s liability is not negated by alleged unauthorized use or non-intimation of transfer. The claimant should not be left in uncertainty or forced to trace actual possession—statutory scheme mandates fixing of liability on the registered owner to serve the law’s protective purpose. Any remedy the owner may have against the actual driver is separate and can be pursued independently but does not affect claimants’ rights for compensation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory interpretation of “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act; rationale that accident victims’ rights should not be burdened by uncertainties or private arrangements unregistered with statutory authorities. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Accident on 07.07.1991 involving an uninsured scooter (registered to Smt. Usha Devi) driven by Jai Karan, causing injuries. The registered owner challenged compensation liability, alleging unauthorized use by the driver, but produced no evidence for forcible taking. The Tribunal had held owner and driver jointly and severally liable. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court of India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment categorically rejects exoneration of the registered owner from liability on the basis of alleged unauthorized use, unless such fact is conclusively proved.
- Affidavits or private assurances by the driver to compensate do not relieve the registered owner of statutory liability to claimants.
- Liability attaches strictly to the registered owner where the vehicle is uninsured, regardless of whether the driver had consent.
- The appellate court reiterates the irrelevance of inter se arrangements between owner and driver as far as claimants’ rights are concerned.
- The owner’s remedies in such a situation are independent and can be pursued against the driver, but not at the expense of compensation to victims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court first reaffirmed that Smt. Usha Devi was the registered owner at the time of the accident involving her uninsured scooter.
- It noted the total absence of any evidence proving the vehicle was taken forcibly or without consent; mere assertions or the driver’s affidavit do not constitute proof.
- The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Naveen Vs. Vijay (AIR 2018 SC 983), which clarified that for liability under the Act, the “registered owner” alone is responsible for compensation to victims; actual possession and consent are not controlling factors, in line with Section 2(30).
- The rationale is to protect victims from uncertainty and prevent them from having to trace profitless trails of alleged transfers or unauthorized use not reflected in the registration.
- The Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Brij Bihari Gupta vs. Manmet (2025 INSC 948) was cited, reaffirming this settled rule.
- The Court observed that private arrangements, including affidavits given by drivers, affect only owner–driver inter se remedies, not liability towards third-party victims.
- The appeals were dismissed with liberty to the owner to pursue recovery from the driver separately if so advised.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Smt. Usha Devi)
- Asserted that the driver (Jai Karan), a police official, had taken the scooter from the shop of her husband and was solely responsible for compensation.
- Placed reliance on the driver’s affidavit, annexed to the appeal, undertaking to compensate the claimants.
- Contended that the Tribunal should not have fastened liability on the registered owner in these circumstances.
Respondent No.1 (Claimant)
- Submitted that the registered owner is liable to pay the compensation amount.
Respondent No.2 (Driver – Jai Karan)
- Despite notice, did not appear; proceeded ex parte.
Factual Background
On 07.07.1991, Subhash Chander and his nephew Jagmohan Bansal were injured when their scooter was hit by another scooter (No. CHC-8387), which was driven by Jai Karan and owned by Smt. Usha Devi. The offending vehicle was uninsured. Both injured parties filed separate claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against both the driver and the registered owner. The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹22,000/- each, holding both to be jointly and severally liable. The owner appealed, disputing liability on grounds of unauthorized use by the driver and his undertaking to pay.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines “owner” as the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.
- Emphasized the statutory purpose: to prevent injury claimants from uncertainty and procedural obstacles, ensuring clear liability.
- Noted that previous definitions (under the 1939 Act) had been consciously departed from to create an unambiguous statutory linkage to the registered owner.
- No other constitutional provision was invoked or discussed.
Procedural Innovations
None identified in the judgment; standard appellate and claim procedure followed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law expressly affirmed.
Citations
- Naveen Vs. Vijay, AIR 2018 SC 983
- Brij Bihari Gupta vs. Manmet and Others, 2025 INSC 948 (Civil Appeal No. 6338–6339 of 2024 decided on 08.08.2025)