Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Sunday, October 18, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Single Judge Cannot Differ From Co-ordinate Bench: Rajasthan High Court Refers Financier's Motor Accident Liability to Larger Bench

Published: · NyayVidhan

In a reference order, the Rajasthan High Court found that a co-ordinate Bench, when it dismissed a finance company's connected appeal against the same motor accident award in 2012, had not been shown Sections 146 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Supreme Court's ruling in Godavari Finance Company (paras 10-11). Instead of taking a contrary view itself, it referred two questions to a Special/Larger Bench and sent the matter to the Chief Justice (paras 19-21).

Single Judge Cannot Differ From Co-ordinate Bench: Rajasthan High Court Refers Financier's Motor Accident Liability to Larger Bench

Judgment Intelligence

Other
Bajaj Auto Finance Limited v. Raghunath & Anr.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 445/2002
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
12 October 2022
Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Relevant Acts & Sections
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 146, 168
Final Outcome

Reference order; the appeal is undecided. Two questions were referred to a Special/Larger Bench, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute it (paras 20-21). The High Court's website showed no later order in this appeal on 18.10.2026.

Download PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. A Single Bench that does not agree with a co-ordinate Bench must refer the matter to a larger Bench (paras 12-13).
  2. A decision rendered overlooking a statutory provision is treated as per incuriam (paras 15-16).
  3. The 2012 order in SBCMA No. 439/2002 was passed without notice of Sections 146 and 168 and Godavari Finance (paras 10-11).
  4. Questions referred: whether that order ignored Godavari Finance and Sections 146 and 168, and whether this appeal may be decided contrary to it under Reshma (para 20).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

An accident on 30.11.1993 injured Raghunath and another man, who died of his injuries (para 2). By a common judgment of 10.08.2000 on both claim petitions, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur fixed liability on Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, the vehicle's financier, and on the registered owner, respondent No. 2; the award under appeal is for Rs. 38,000 (paras 1-2). The financier's connected appeal, SBCMA No. 439/2002, was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 11.04.2012, and that order attained finality (paras 3, 7). Here the financier relied on Godavari Finance and HDFC Bank v. Reshma; the claimant pointed to the 2012 order's finality and payment of the award (paras 4-5).

Court's Findings

As the unchallenged 2012 order arose from the same award, the question was whether to follow it or take a different view in the light of Godavari Finance and HDFC Bank v. Reshma, under which a financier cannot be held liable to pay compensation when the owner has not insured the vehicle (para 7). It set out Godavari Finance, which holds that a financer under a hire-purchase agreement cannot ordinarily be treated as the owner (para 8), and Reshma, which treats the person in possession under a hypothecation agreement as the owner (para 9). Reading the 2012 order, it found that Sections 146 and 168 and Godavari Finance had not been brought to that Bench's notice, so the appeal had been decided in ignorance of them (paras 10-11). Judicial decorum and propriety require a Bench that does not agree with a co-ordinate Bench to refer the matter to a larger Bench, as the Supreme Court held in Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija and Ayyaswami Gounder (paras 12-13). The Court also relied on rulings that a decision that missed earlier rulings or a statutory provision is per incuriam (paras 14-16) and that a co-ordinate Bench in doubt can only refer (paras 17, 19).

Legal Principle

A Single Judge who finds that a co-ordinate Bench decided a matter without notice of a binding Supreme Court ruling or a governing statutory provision should not take a contrary view sitting alone. Judicial decorum and propriety require the question to go to a larger Bench, constituted by the Chief Justice (paras 12-13, 17, 19-21).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Godavari Finance Company v. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 107
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20

    A financer of a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement cannot ordinarily be treated as its owner; the person in possession is liable. The Court found the co-ordinate Bench decided SBCMA No. 439/2002 without notice of it.

  2. HDFC Bank Limited v. Reshma & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 679
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 7, 9, 19, 20

    The person in possession of the vehicle under a hypothecation agreement is treated as the owner; a financier is not liable where the borrower plied the vehicle uninsured. Basis of the second referred question.

  3. Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija & Ors. v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 261
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12

    Judicial decorum and propriety require a Bench that does not agree with a co-ordinate Bench to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

View all precedents (11)
  1. Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder AIR 1984 SC 1789
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13

    A Single Judge not agreeing with an earlier Single Judge decision of the same High Court should refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than take a contrary view.

  2. Rama Rao & Ors. v. Shantibai & Ors. AIR 1977 MP 222 (Full Bench, Madhya Pradesh High Court)
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14

    An earlier Single Judge decision given contrary to earlier decisions not noticed by that Bench was per incuriam.

  3. Thuraka Onnuramma & Anr. v. Tahsildar, Kadiri & Ors. AIR 1980 AP 267
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15

    A decision rendered overlooking a statutory provision is treated as per incuriam.

  4. Philip Jeyasingh v. The Joint Registrar 1992 (2) MLJ 309
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16

    A decision rendered overlooking a statutory provision is per incuriam and is not a binding precedent.

  5. S. Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District Criminal Appeal No. 452/2020 (Supreme Court)
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17

    A co-ordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view; if in doubt it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench.

  6. Shri Jagadish Deka v. The State of Assam W.A. No. 158/2009 (Gauhati High Court)
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18

    Circumstances in which a decision is rendered per incuriam, including ignorance of a statute or binding authority, and the duty to refer instead of departing from earlier decisions.

  7. Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel (1968) 1 SCR 455
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Cited by counsel for the appellant for referring conflicting decisions to a larger Bench instead of taking a contrary view.

  8. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited v. Smt Prem & Ors. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 439/2002, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 11.04.2012
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 19, 20

    Co-ordinate Bench order dismissing the financier's connected appeal against the same award; found to have been passed without notice of Sections 146 and 168 and Godavari Finance, and its correctness referred to a larger Bench.

Statutory Provisions

MV Act
Topics: Per Incuriam Liability of Vehicle Owner Motor Accident Compensation Reference to Larger Bench
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 12, 2022 Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt