^•sss^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AJ BILASPUR M.A. 1112 of 2005 CORAWt: Hon'ble Shri S.ft. Ncyak, CJ <& Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosodieb Deshmukh, J. Aopellant Non-applicont No.2 ResBpndent (Claimonts) Manihar Singh Markam S/o Sunna Ram, Aged about 48 years, R/o Block colony Keshkal,bist: Bastar-(C.6.) Versus 1. Radha Bai, Wd/of Late Hirulal Yadav, Aged about 39 years, 2. Satish Kumar S/o Late Hirulal Yadav, Aged about 22 years. 3. A'Hodssh Kumar S/o Late Hirulal Yadav, Aged about 20 years. 4. Ku. AAamta, &/o Late Hirulal Yadav, Aged about 19 years. 5. Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Late Hirutal Yadav, Aged about 18 years. Respondents 1 to 5 are R/o Bazar Para Surdonagar, Tehsil - Keshkal, Dist : Bastar-(C.&.) At present Aamopara Kanker, Dist: Kanker-(C.6.) 6. L.R.&hruv, S/o Loknath Dhruv, Aged about 44 years, R/o Boregaon Keshkal Teacher Government Higher Secondary School Keshkal, Tehsi! Keshkal, Dist ; Bastar-(C.0.) Shri Prafulla Bharat, Counsel for the oppellant. ORAL OR&ER (Passedon^4th January, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by 5. R. >/ ^rf.S;* 1. The c^pellant is the owner of the motor vehicle involved m V-iii incldent. It is the contention of the appellant-owner that the liability A to pay compensation could not haye been fastened on the appellant, because, well before the date of accident, the motor vehicle involved in the accident was sold to the sixth respondent. That is the only ground urged before us by the leamed counsel for the dppellant. 2. We do not find any merit in the above contention. Although it was claimed by the appellant that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was sold to Respondent No.6 herein and physical possession of the motor yehicle was handed over to the sixth respondent under cn agreement dated 5.7.2000, in the pleading filed by the sixth respondent, he denied the purchase of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. In that view of the matter, the M.A.C.T., according to us, has rightly held that the appellant continued to be the lawful owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. In addition, it needs to be noticsd that as on the date of the accident, the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle <and ther®was no change in the registration. 3. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^S-Til CT,V