- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8011 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN: MR J KRISHNE GOWDA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A NO.34, 1ST ‘A’ MAIN ROAD SHIVANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DODDAMUNISHYAMI S/O PEDDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. ANJINAPPA S/O DODDAMUNISHYAMI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3. RATHNAMMA S/O DODDAMUNISHYAMI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.5 JADENAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. RAMESH S/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 MAJOR, R/O PATOOR VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. 5. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SHOP NO.3,AND 4 SUDHA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR ENTRANCE BANGALORE-560010 BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHYAMPRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R4 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 2.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1973/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,98,400/-WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2013 passed by the III Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC No.1973 of 2012. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 2. One Nagamma met with an accident on 10.12.2010 and died subsequently. Her husband and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.6,98,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It was held that respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2-driver are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 50% each. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1, who is owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EW-9889 before the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that he added the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited in this appeal as respondent No.5 by order dated 07.07.2022. The accident occurred on 10.12.2010. The driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EW- 9889, belonging to the appellant herein, driven it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is contended that he filed detailed objection before the tribunal and contended that his motorcycle was stolen on 30.11.2009 and he gave a - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 complaint to the police regarding theft of the vehicle on 05.12.2009. They registered a case in crime No.556 of 2009 on the same day, but the vehicle was not traced. As such, they have given untraced report. It is contended that he claimed the cost of the theft vehicle from respondent No.5-insurance company as the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the said insurance company as on the date of the theft, the insurance company paid the sum of Rs.27,950/- towards cost of the motor cycle. It is also contended by the appellant herein that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and the vehicle being the theft vehicle which was in the illegal custody of respondent No.4-driver herein. He was not in the control and legal possession of the said vehicle. The amount was already paid by the insurance company and he is not liable to pay the compensation. As 4th respondent-driver was in the illegal possession of the theft vehicle as on the date of the accident, he alone is liable to pay the compensation. 4. It is also contended by the appellant that respondent No.4-driver, herein in his objection statement before the Tribunal, has stated that he was not aware of the accident and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 he was falsely implicated in the case. But, the tribunal, without considering the same, fixed up liability in the ratio of 50% on each of them. 5. As on the date of the accident, the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and it was in illegal custody of respondent No.4-driver, herein who caused the accident. It is contended that the insurance company has settled the cost of the offending vehicle as per Ex.R.5 and as such the said insurance company has become the owner of the stolen vehicle at the time of accident and they are alone entitled for the custody of the said vehicle which has been seized by the Chikkabllapura police after the accident by respondent No.4- driver. But the Tribunal held that he continued to be the owner of the offending vehicle as the registration certificate stands in his name and thus, he is liable to pay the compensation. It is contended that he gave complaint and FIR as per Exhibit R1 and Exhibit R2 respectively, much prior to the accident and therefore, it is for the police department to intimate the same to RTO regarding the theft of the vehicle. The Tribunal without proper evidence granted compensation an amount of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 Rs.6,98,400/- towards loss of dependency to the claimants. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 7. On 10.12.2010, while Nagamma was crossing NH-7 road, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02- EW-9889 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result, she died on the spot. 8. The appellant herein, being the 1st respondent before the Tribunal, appeared and filed objection stating that he is the owner of the vehicle till 27.05.2010. On 29.11.2009, there was theft of the vehicle which was parked in front of his house. As such, he gave complaint in Crime No.556 of 2009. It is stated by him that as the police failed to trace the vehicle, he claimed the amount from the insurance company and they paid the amount of Rs.27,950/- on 27.05.2010. Hence, as on the date of accident, he was not the owner and the 4th respondent- - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 driver was in possession of the vehicle in question. As such, he alone is responsible for the accident. 9. The 4th respondent i.e. the driver before the Tribunal, filed written statement and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and the appellant herein was the owner. Nagamma crossed the road negligently and contributed for the accident, and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition against him. 10. P.W.1 stated that he has not witnessed the accident and he cannot say the registration number of the offending vehicle as he is an illiterate. But, he added that police made note of the registration number of the vehicle which caused the accident. He gave complaint on the same day, in which the registration number of vehicle was clearly mentioned. 11. R.W.1 has produced copy of the covering letter given to insurance company and the letter issued by the insurance company as per Exhibit R4 and R5. R.W.1 stated that appellant herein was the owner of the vehicle and he was never in possession of the same. He was not even aware of the accident, but owner has not stepped into the witness box. It - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 was suggested to R.W.1 that by colluding with the police, he created the documents, but he denied the same. It is further stated that insurance amount was claimed on 27.05.2010 itself. As on the date of accident, he was RC owner of the offending vehicle. As per RTO records, he was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, but he expressed his innocence. In the cross examination, R.W.1 has stated that he gave an intimation to the concerned RTO in writing that his motor cycle was stolen, but he has not produced the said intimation letter before the Court. He has not even replied to the Chikkaballapur Police intimating that he was not the actual owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EW-9889 after availing insurance amount on 27.05.2015 as per Section 94 and 95 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939-(CENTRAL ACT NO.4OF 1939) – Sections 94 and 95 – “Person whose name finds place in the Registration Certificate of the Vehicle, is liable to pay compensation irrespective of the fact that he has sold the vehicle prior to the date fop accident.” - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 12. With the said observation, the Tribunal directed respondent No.1-appellant herein to deposit the amount. The Tribunal also considered the age of the deceased as 50 years and applied multiplier as 13. Further, observed that she was earning Rs.150/- per day, added 30% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd of monthly income towards personal expenses and granted Rs.6,08,400/- towards loss of dependency and granted reasonable amount towards other heads, totalling to Rs.6,98,400/- towards compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.1-appellant herein and respondent No.2-driver therein to pay 50% compensation by each of them. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle was stolen on 29.11.2009. As such, the complaint was given on 05.12.2009 and the case was registered. As it was not traced, based on the said report of the police, the insurance company also paid compensation of Rs.27,950/-. He further contended that as the policy was in existence, the insurance company became the owner of the stolen vehicle and they are liable to pay the compensation. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 14. Learned counsel for respondent-insurance stated that policy issued was in existence from 11.09.2009 to 10.09.2010 and it was not in existence as on the date of accident, i.e. on 10.12.2010. As such, they are not liable to pay compensation. When once the appellant herein gave complaint and also received compensation from the insurance company, it is for him to inform the RTO as he is the registered owner of the vehicle, but he failed to do so. As on the date of accident, he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.2- driver of the offending vehicle has not stated as to how he came into possession of the said vehicle. He simply stated that he is only the rider of the vehicle. As such, the owner is liable to pay compensation. RW1-appellant herein has stated that it was stolen by somebody and it was in the possession of the driver at the time of the accident and the accident occurred only due to his negligence. Charge sheet is also filed against driver and therefore, he is also liable to pay the compensation. 15. The tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and directed both respondent No.1 and 2 therein to deposit the amount of compensation equally in the ratio of 50% by each of - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010388932013 NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013 them. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. 16. In the result, this appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Both appellant herein i.e. respondent No.1-owner and respondent No.2-driver, before the Tribunal, are directed to pay compensation equally within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52