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 Others ((2018) 2 SCC 1) 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.

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.