- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1283 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. G. SAVITHA W/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1269/26, 9TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. R. ASHOK @ ASHOKAN R S/O T R RAJANRAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51, SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. DIVISION 8, 1ST FLOOR, NO.9, ABOVE FOOD WORK, LINGARAJU COMPLEX, GANDHIBAZAAR MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 3. MR T B ESHWAR S/O BALACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O VENKATAPPA BUILDING, 13TH CROSS, G K LAYOUT, NEAR SUJANA CONVENT, CHENNAKESHAVANAGARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560 100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H M GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, V/O DATED 24.08.2022 - NOTICE TO R-3 HELD SUFFICIENT) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3176/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the judgment and award dated 5th May 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Addl. Small Causes Court, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) (for short “the Tribunal”), in MVC No.3176/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 4. The dispute in this appeal is in respect of fastening the liability on the person who is said to be owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. Therefore, there is no need to refer in detail about the facts of the case. 5. The claimant contended that he met with an accident on 12.05.2012 by involvement of the vehicle - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 bearing Reg,No.KA-05-HD-1702 and he sustained injuries in the said accident. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, by the impugned judgment awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. The said finding of the Tribunal is not challenged by either of the parties. 7. According to contention of the appellant, respondent No.3 was the owner of the offending vehicle as on 12.05.2012, prior to that day respondent No.1 was the owner and she had sold the said vehicle to respondent No.3 and that fact was not disputed. The Tribunal without considering the said admitted facts fastened the liability on respondent No.1. The Tribunal had not looked into the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of transfer of the vehicle and dismissed the claim against respondent No.2, this is challenged in the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 8. The dispute is very short. It appears that the Tribunal has not considered the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the benefit of the parties, it is necessary to refer the said section, which reads as under: "157. Transfer of certificate of insurance.— (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 1[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.] (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 9. Therefore, by the transfer of the vehicle the policy of the insurance on the said vehicle has been transferred in the name of the purchaser. The only condition is that the purchaser has to intimate the said fact to the insurer. With reference to this case, respondent No.3 did not inform the said fact to respondent No.2, only on that ground the liability of insurer will not be absorbed to pay the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the Tribunal in impugned judgment at para No.19, held that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. 11. Undisputedly, the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and as far as the third party is concerned respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and it is at liberty to recover from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.3 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, therefore, prayed to reduce the same. 13. The said contention is also not acceptable. The Tribunal after relying on the judgment of this Court, has awarded the rate of interest at 8% and thus, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to award the rate of interest. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 14. Liability to pay the compensation is in between respondent No.2 and 3, since appellant - respondent No.1 has sold the said vehicle to respondent No.3, which is not in dispute. 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 05.05.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Addl. Small Causes - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28322 MFA No. 1283 of 2016 Court, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) in MVC No.3176/2013 stands modified. iii) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Since the said vehicle was driven by person who was not having valid driving licence, the respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation to the claimant with liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in an appropriate proceedings. iv) Since respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation whatever the amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellant and due acknowledgement. v) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of award. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PSJ