HIGH COURT 6F CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Rsrosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Owner/Non- apDiicant No.1 Resoondents Claimants M.A.C.No. 359 of 2008 : BrijaDevi, W/o Ram Jatan Jaiswal, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Dibulganj, Post Apanpara, Distt. Sonbhadra (UP) Versus 1. Nagendra Patel, S/o Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, 2. Budhani, W/o Nagendra Patel, aged about 43 years. R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, P.S. Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrafhagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Owner } : 3. Amritlal Jaiswal, S/o Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village & Post Pandri. Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG) At present Village Chouna Ghagra, Sonbhadra, (UP) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati; counsel for the appellant. Shri JA. Lohani, counsel for respodnnets No.1&2/clajmants. Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. MAC.No. 448 of 2008 Appellant Purchaser ofVehide Resoondents Claimant Amritlat Jaiswal, S/o Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal. aged about 40 years, R/o Village-Pandri, Post Pandri Tah Wadrafhagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG) (Purchaser of vehicle) present Address R/oChona Ghaghra, Sonbhadr (UP) \<fersus 1. iNagendra Patel, S/o Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, 2. Budhani, W/o Nagendra Patel, aged about 43 years. R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, P.8. Chalgali. Tahsil Wadrafhagar, ^ Distt. Sarguja (CG) Owner : i 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 Vehicle Act Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellant Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for respodnnets No.1&2/daimants. Shri D.N. Prelijapati, counsel for respondent No.3. 1 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23.09.2008) This order shall govern MA.C. No.448/2008 preferred by Amritlal Jaiswal. (2) Brief facts are that on 09.04.2005, a Marshall Jeep bearing No.UP-64/8/5985 (hencefbrth the 'Jeep') driven by one Ramesh met with an accident, in which one Pannalal, athird party died. The driver of the Jeep namely Ramesh also died in the accident. Parents of the deceased i.e. Nagendra Patel and Budhani filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An application under Section 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 disput^, that after theaccident. 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 Devi and Amritlal Jaiswal resisted the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Brija Oevi submitted that she had already sold the Jeep t6 Amritlal Jaiswal on 07.01.2005 through an agreement Annexure-AZ and had not only delivered possession to Amritial Jaiswal, but had also sent intimation to the R.T.O. Sonbadhra. On the other hand, Amritlal Jaiwal argued that on the date of the accident. the Jeep was in actual possession of BrijaDevi. 4 Cft^^ ^- ^ ^" -i s <s^ 's- ^ (5) The Tribunal placing reliance on Saniav Sinah Thakur vs. Sultan Ahmad. Bilasour. M.P. ahdothers AIR 1996 MADHYA PRADESH 30, passed an order that Brija Devi and Amrittal Jaiswal both shall be liable to depos'rt Rs.25,000/- in the Tribunal within a period of one month as interim compensation on the ground of 'No Fault Liability'. (6) Having heard the rival contentions, there is no merit in both' appeals. The question as to who was in actual possession of the vehicle on the date of accident is disputed. Itis true that on the date of accident Brija Devi was the registered owner of the Jeep. But, she had submitted before the Tribunal that she had delivered adual possession to Amritlal Jaiswal on 07.01 .2005. Similarly, Amritlal Jaiswal contended that although after the accide|nt the Jeep was registered in his name, yet on the date of accident, ^rija Devi was in actual possession of the Jeep. Thus, the question as! to who was in actual possession of the jeep on the date of accident was disputed. In the case of Saniav Sinah Thakur vs. Sultan Ahmad. Bilaswr. M.P. and others (Supra), in a similar sitojation. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has upheld a similar order passed by the Tribunal under Section 92-A of the Motor VehidesAct.1939. I (7) In view of the fact that the question as to who was in actual possession of the Jeep on the date of accident remains to be decided during final adjudication of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has righUy apportioned the liability 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.448/2CX)8 also. Dttip Sd/- RaosahebDeshmukh Judge Priya