Registered Owner Of Vehicle Liable To Pay Compensation For Death Or Bodily Injury In Motor Accident: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that the registered owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation on account of death or bodily injury in an accident of the motor vehicle.

The Court was hearing Appeals preferred by the claimants and arising out of one and the same accident.

A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed, “In view of judgments of the Apex Court registered owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation on account of death or bodily injury in an accident of the motor vehicle, owned by him. In present case also at the time of accident registered owner was Boby Chauhan, therefore, liability to pay compensation would be of registered owner Boby Chauhan.”

The Bench said that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation to the claimants.

Advocate H.S. Rangra represented the Appellants, while Advocates Jai Dev, Gurinder Singh Parmar, and Bhupinder Singh Pathania represented the Respondents.

Case Background

In 2016, Ghanshyam, his wife Neetu, Usha, and driver Gian were travelling in a car. When they reached at a place, the driver could not control the vehicle and it rolled down to deep gorge. Resultantly, there was total loss of vehicle and three persons i.e., Ghanshyam, Neetu, and Usha died on the spot. Whereas, the driver succumbed to his injuries after some time. The Petitioners were the mother, son, and daughter of Ghanshyam.

All three of them preferred two separate Petitions for awarding compensation on account of death of Ghanshyam and Neetu in the accident alleging rash and negligent driving of the car involved in the accident by driver Gian. The Respondent namely Boby was the registered owner of the car, whereas Leela was the surviving legal heir of the deceased driver. Petitions were filed by the said claimants for compensation, which were dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Challenging the same, they approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “From the above discussion, it is apparent that findings returned by the MACT on Issues No. 1 and 2 deserve to be reversed and accordingly it is held that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by deceased Gian Chand.”

The Court added that there is nothing on record to hold that Claim Petitions were bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties.

“As discussed supra, there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim that Neetu Devi and Ghanshyam were earning ₹12,000/- and ₹22,000/- respectively per month. … Faced with aforesaid paucity of evidence to substantiate the plea of monthly income of deceased Neetu Devi and Ghanshyam, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has fairly conceded that monthly income of Neetu Devi and Ghanshyam at relevant point of time can be determined on the basis of minimum wages @200/- per day, prescribed at relevant time for unskilled and semiskilled workers”, it observed.

The Court was of the view that interest @ 9% per anum appears to be slightly on higher side, therefore, interest payable by the Insurance Company shall be @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Petitions till realization of the amount.

“As such compensation amount comes 12,25,200/- plus ₹ interest @6% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 9.6.2017. … there is no lapse on the part of respondent No. 1 Boby Chauhan or Gian Chand with regard to completion of process of transfer. Before completion of process of transfer, registered owner was respondent No. 1 Boby Chauhan”, it further noted.

The Court said that even if Gian is considered to be owner after issuance of NOC, then also there shall be no change in the status of the Insurance Company as Insurer and liability to pay as insurer, and to indemnify the owner, either considering the previous owner as registered owner or Gian as such.

“There is nothing in the exclusion clause, so as to construe that liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants of deceased persons traveling in the car was excluded. It was a Private Car Package Policy cover. Therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot be absolved from its legal duty to indemnify the owner of the vehicle”, it also remarked.

Conclusion

The Court added that the sitting capacity of the offending vehicle including driver was 5 and four persons were sitting in the vehicle; accordingly, Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation to the claimants.

“In view of above, respondent No. 1 Boby Chauhan, owner of the vehicle is held liable to pay the compensation and Insurance Company is liable to indemnify respondents No. 1 Boby Chauhan for payment of compensation amount of 14,94,000/- in FAO No. 50 of 2024 ₹ ₹ and 12,25,200/- in FAO No. 51 of 2024. Claimants in both appeals shall be entitled for compensation in equal proportion alongwith interest in equal proportion thereon @ 6% per annum. Respondent-Insurance Company shall indemnify respondent No. 1 Boby Chauhan by making payment of compensation to the claimants directly or by depositing the amount in the Registry of this Court on or before 31st October, 2025”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals.

Cause Title- Kamli & Others v. Boby Chauhan & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:33881)

Click here to read/download the Judgment