IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fONO. ~^>c^ J2QQS APPELLANT/ owner/Non- applicant no. 1 RESPONDENTS/ Claimants ^^ ^ Te^ ^ ^' Owner Y Bija DeviW/o Ram Jatan Jaiswal, ^f^ aged about 45 years, R/o Village Dibulganj, Post Apanpara, Distt. Sonbhadra ( U.P. ) VERSUS ^ Nagendra Patel, S/o Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, Budhani W/o Nagendra Patel, Ag^d about 43 years, Both R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, P.S. Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Amritlal Jaiswal, S/o Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village & Post Pandri, Tahsil wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) At present Village Chouna Ghaghra, Sonbhadra, (U.P.) MEMO OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION vf^3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT «^) 3. ^ H<»1J^ t t f Er.s—a- ^^ ^ HIGHCOURrQFCHHATTISGARHrBU.ASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshroukh, J. AoDellant Owner/Non- applicant No.1 Respondents Claimante M.A.C.No. 359 of 2008 BrijaDevi, W/o Ram Jatan Jaiswal, agedl about 45 years, R/o Village Dibulganj, Post Apanpara, Distt. Sonbhadra (UP) Versus 1. Nagendra Patet, S/o Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, 2. Budhani, W/o Nagendia Patel, aged about 43 years. R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, P.S. Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrathagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 3. Amritlal Jaiswal, S/o Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village & Post Pandri, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sargifla (CG) At present Village Chouna Ghagra, Sonbhadra, (UP) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle ACt Owner Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati,counselfortheap|»llarrt. Shri JA. Lohani, counsel for respodnnets No.1&2/claimants. Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel Tor res(X>ndent No.3. Appellant PurcbaserofVehjcle Respondents Claimant MAC.No. 448 of 2008 Amritlal Jaisvral, S/o Amuna Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, R/o Villafle-Pandri, Po^ Pandri Tah Wadraftiagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG) (Purehaser of vehicle) present Address R/oChona Ghaghra, Sonbhadr(UP) Versus 1. Nagendra Patel, S/o Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, 2. Budhani, W/o Nagendra Patel, aged about43 years. R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, P.S. Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrathagar, K ^T"^. /y^""' r Vt^ "•'iSErfs^ -^ Distt. Sarguja (CG) Owner : 3. BrijaDevi, W/o Ram Jatan Jaiswal, aged about 45 yeare, R/o Village Dibulganj, Post Anpara, Distt. Sonbhadra (UP) (OWNER) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicte Act Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellant • Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for respodnnets No.l&Z/claimants. Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23.09.2008) This order shall govern MA.C. No.448Q008 preferred by AmriUal Jaiswal. (2) Brief facts are that on 09.04.2005, a Marshall Jeep bearing No.UP-64/B/5985 (henceforth the 'Jeep') driven by one Ramesh met with an accident, in which one Pannalal, a third party died. The driver of the Jeep namely Ramesh also died in the aecident. Parerts of the deceased i.e. Nagendra Patel and Budhani filed an applicatfon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An appncation under SecUon 140 ofthe Motor Vehicles was also filed. (3) In this appeal, it is not in dispute that on the date of accident, the appellant Brija Devi was the registered owner of the Jeep. It is also not in dispute that after the accident, the said Jeep was registered in the name of the respondent-Amritlal Jaiswal since he had purchased the Jeep from Brija Devi. (4) Both Brija Oevi and Amritlal Jaiswal resisted the applicaBon under SecUon 1^) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Brija Devi submittsd that she had atready sold the Jeep to AmriUal Jaiswal on 07.01.2005 through an agreement Annexure-Aiand had not only delivered possession to AmriUal Jaiswal, but had also sent inttmation to the R.T.O. Sonbadhra. On fte other hand, Amritlal Jahval argued that on the date of the accident, the Jeep was in actual possession of^ BrijaDevi. \~ 0"\^^ ^-j^ ff& ^^ %, S-^s^SSRSt. 8 '% c?0^ (5) The Tribunal placing reliance on Saniav S/nph Tlwkur vs. Sulton Ahmad. Bilasour. M.P. andothersMR 1996 MADHYA PRADESH 30, passed an order that Brija Devi and Amritlal Jaiswal both shall be liable to deposit Rs.25,000/- in the Tribunal within a period of one montti as interim compensation on the ground of 'No Fault Liability'. (6) Having heard the rival contentions, there is no merit In botti appeals. The question as to who was in actual possession of the vehicle on the date of accident is disputed. It is tme that on the date of accklent Brija Devi was the registered owner of the Jeep. But, she had submitted before the Tribunal that she had delivered actual po^essfon to AmriUal Jaiswal on 07.01 .2005. Similarly, Amritlal Jaiswal contended that although after the accident the Jeep was registered in his name, yet on the date of accident, Brija Devi was in actual possession of the Jeep. Thus, the question as to who was in actual possession of e jeep on the date of accident was disputed. In the case of Saniav Sinah Thakw vs. Suttan Ahmad, Bilasisur. M.P. and aihers (Supra), in a similarsituaBon, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has upheld a similar order passed by the Tribunal under Section 92-A of fte Motor VehiclesAct, 1939. (7) In view of the fact that the question as to who was in acfaial possession of the Jeep on the date of accjdent remains to be decided during final adjudication of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the lialNlity to pay interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- equally amongst Brija Devi and Amritlal Jaiswal. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, M.A.C Nos.359/2008 and 448/2008 are dismissed. (8) A copy of this order be placed in M.A.C. No.448/20)8 ala>. SSF Dilip Ra»sabebJ Judge Priya i-i 'N. Si ;l^l.