Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Appeals, Holds Registered Owner Liable for Compensation in Uninsured Scooter Accident
Case Name: Smt. Usha Rani & Smt. Usha Devi vs. Master Jagmohan Bansal & Ors. / Subhash Chander & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 01.09.2025
Citation: FAO No. 169 of 1994 & FAO No. 170 of 1994.
Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta.
Held: The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the registered owner of the offending scooter, affirming that in cases where the vehicle is uninsured, the registered owner remains liable to compensate the injured claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court rejected the plea that liability should rest solely on the driver, even though he was a police official who allegedly took the scooter from the appellant’s husband’s shop. The Court held that under Section 2(30) of the Act, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is deemed the owner for liability purposes, irrespective of possession or alleged transfer.
Summary: The case arose from a motor accident on 07.07.1991, when scooter No. CHC-8387, driven rashly by Jai Karan, collided with another scooter, causing injuries to Subhash Chander and his nephew Jagmohan Bansal. The victims filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by award dated 11.05.1993, granted compensation of ₹22,000/- each with interest, holding both the driver and registered owner jointly and severally liable.
The registered owner, Smt. Usha Devi, challenged the award, arguing that since the driver was a police officer who had taken the scooter, only he should bear liability. She relied on an affidavit of Jai Karan, wherein he undertook to compensate the claimants.
The Court, however, noted that no evidence was led to prove forcible taking of the scooter. It further held that settled law fixes liability on the registered owner in cases of uninsured vehicles, regardless of who was driving at the time. Reliance was placed on Naveen vs. Vijay (AIR 2018 SC 983) and reaffirmed in Brij Bihari Gupta vs. Manmet (2025 INSC 948), where the Supreme Court clarified that the statutory definition of “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates liability upon the registered owner to protect victims from uncertainty.
Decision: The High Court dismissed both appeals, holding the registered owner liable to satisfy the compensation awarded to the injured claimants. It clarified that while the owner may seek recovery from the driver through separate proceedings, the liability towards the claimants could not be shifted.