MV Act | Driver Not Jointly Liable For Accident; Owner Of Vehicle Solely Responsible To Pay Interim Compensation: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the owner of a vehicle can be held liable to pay interim compensation on the principle of “no fault” and the driver of the vehicle cannot be made jointly liable with the owner.Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The driver could not have been made liable to pay the compensation...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the owner of a vehicle can be held liable to pay interim compensation on the principle of “no fault” and the driver of the vehicle cannot be made jointly liable with the owner.
Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The driver could not have been made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the owner of the offending vehicle. It is the owner of the vehicle alone who shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the MV Act.”
The motor accident claims tribunal had imposed joint liability on the owner and driver of the vehicle to pay interim compensation to the claimant under Section 140 of the MV Act.
Against the award of the tribunal, there were two appeals filed, one by the driver of the vehicle, contending that the tribunal had wrongly imposed liability on him as he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of driving the vehicle, so only the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation.
Another appeal was filed by the owner of the vehicle, contending that he had exchanged the vehicle for another vehicle, so he was not liable to pay any compensation.
The Court reiterated section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which states that “Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation...”
The Court remarked that the Tribunal had misapplied the provision by fastening liability on both the owner and driver.
Then the Court referred to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines “owner” as the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered.
Thus, the Court modified the Tribunal's award and held that only the owner is liable to pay compensation.
Case Name: Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.
Case No.: FAO No.75 of 2025 a/w FAO No.84/2025
Date of Decision: 28.10.2025
For the appellants: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No. 75/2025. Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No. 84/2025.
For the respondents: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 in both the appeals.
Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in FAO No.75/2025.
Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 84/2025.