Sri. Ajith Kumar R Vs Sri. Prakash G

SRI. PRAKASH G S/O GOVINDA SWAMY R/A NO.5/172 Digitally signed VALLZAI THOTTAM VILLAGE by PADMASHREE KULLAMPATTI POST SHEKHAR POCHAMBALLI TALUK DESAI KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT Location: High TAMIL NADU STATE Court of AND ALSO PRESENT Karnataka R/A NO.1, 11^TH MAIN, MSR LAYOUT HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 068.

¶19

SRI GANAPATHI S/O MAHADEV HEGDE NO.27, VINAYANAGARA J P NAGAR 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH PHASE

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SILVER OAK STREET BENGALURU-560 078.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHIVANAGOUDAR NAGANAGOUDA MALLANAGOUDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2548/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 14,37,612/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS. 20,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 487/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. GANAPATHI S/O MAHADEV HEGDE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.27, VINAYANAGARA J P NAGAR, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH PHASE, SILVER OAK STREET BENGALURU-560 078.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SRI. PRAKASH G S/O GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/172 VALLAZAI THOTTAM VILLAGE

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

KULLAMPATTI POST, POCHAMBALLI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI, DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. AND ALSO PRESENT R/AT: NO.1, 11^TH MAIN, MSR LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶36

SRI AJITH KUMAR R NO.22 BHARATHI NAGAR 1^ST STREET, VILLIVAKKAM CHENNAI-600 049

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. SHIVANAGOUDAR NAGANAGOUDA MALLANAGOUDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. ANWAR ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.08.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2548/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH5), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,37,612/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.20,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.04.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CAV JUDGMENT

¶45

M.F.A. No.7602 of 2023 and M.F.A. No.487 of 2024 are

¶46

filed against the judgment and award dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.2548 of 2020.

¶47

The injured claimant – Prakash G, met with an accident on 05.12.2019 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record granted Rs.14,37,612/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal further directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to deposit award

¶48

amount with interest within 60 days from the date of the said order at the ratio of 50% each.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.7602 of 2023 is filed by one Ajith Kumar R, who is the 2nd respondent in aforesaid MVC, mainly contending that claimant was riding the Honda Activa Motorcycle on 05.12.2019, when he has taken turn towards Beguru from Beguru Cross road, at that time, suddenly, Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-HH-

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

9010 ridden by its rider came in a rash and negligent

¶53

manner, to overtake the auto rickshaw and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Charge sheet was filed against the rider of Yamaha FZ motorcycle. Respondent No.1-Ganapathi filed written statement in January 2018 and stated that he handed over the possession and custody of the vehicle to one Umesh, a two wheeler mechanic and he sold the motorcycle to respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar. On the date of accident, the 1st respondent-Ganapathi was not in possession of the vehicle and he sold and delivered the possession of the vehicle to respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar R on 10.01.2018. The rider of the vehicle used the vehicle without the policy of insurance, the claimant who was riding the Honda Activa was in a hurry to cross the road from Begur cross towards right side. Later, the appellant herein was implicated and he stated that, at the time of the accident, he was the RC owner of the offending vehicle, and he already sold out the vehicle through OLX, and now, he came to know about the accident. Therefore, requested Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

It is contended by the appellant herein that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the fact that the vehicle in question was stood in the name of respondent No.1-Ganapathi. It was clearly mentioned that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered for the purpose of the Act would be treated as owner. The vehicle stood in the name of the 1st respondent as per section 2(30) of MV Act. But the Tribunal lost sight of the same and imposed liability of 50% on him and it is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. As the registration certificate stands in the name of respondent No.1Ganapathi, he alone is liable to pay the compensation. But the Tribunal has directed and fixed 50% liability against the appellant herein on the ground that there was transfer of ownership.

¶57

It is further contended that Exhibit R1 is the delivery

¶58

note marked through cross examination of R.W.1. No documentary evidence was issued by registering authority to affirm the fact of purchase by the appellant herein, and thus, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability upon respondent No.1-Ganapathi, who is owner of the vehicle as per Section

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant Ajith Kumar, who is the respondent No. 2 in the claim petition is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The person who caused the accident was not made as a party to the proceedings. Though criminal case was filed against him and it is pending. The Tribunal fixed 50% liability without any basis and it is erroneous. It is further contended that without any additional issue, the liability of 50% is fixed upon the appellant herein and it is unknown to law and needs to be set aside. No issue is framed regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking his income of the claimant as Rs.49,186/- per month, which is erroneous and granted loss of income during laid up period for one month and future medical expenses granted is also not on proper basis and is to be set aside and thus, requested this Court to set aside the award of the Tribunal against him.

¶62

MFA No.487 of 2024 is filed by one Ganapathi, who is respondent No.1 in the aforesaid claim petition. The appellant herein has stated that fixing liability as 50% by the Tribunal is contrary to the documentary evidence. The Tribunal fixed

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

liability on the ground that registration certificate is still standing in his name as on the date of occurrence of the accident i.e. on 05.12.2019 and it is against to the oral evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 has clearly admitted in his crossexamination that he purchased motor cycle for him by issuing delivery note as per Exhibit R1. Therefore, the question of fastening liability on him does not arise. It is contended that the Tribunal gave finding that rider of the motorcycle with registration No.KA-05-HH-9010 is directly involved in the accident as FIR and charge sheet are filed against him. But, the cross-examination of R.W.1 was not considered by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal ought to have held that the involvement of the motor cycle itself is doubtful and respondent No.2 was falsely implicated in the criminal case. The Tribunal fixed the liability of 50% on the appellant as well as on respondent No.2 herein without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is also contended that R.W.1, during the crossexamination, stated that he purchased the motorcycle from appellant herein by executing delivery note and later, he sold it to another person through OLX. It is the negligence of respondent No.2 in not getting his name entered in the

¶66

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

registration certificate and he is also negligent in not renewing the insurance policy after the purchase. It is also contended that the claimant was not having valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle and he himself is negligent. Therefore, fastening liability on both of them by the Tribunal is to be set aside.

¶69

It is also contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.49,186/- without any basis and it has wrongly appreciated the documents produced under Exs.P12 to P18. In fact, the documents are in the name of Govinda Swamy, who is the father of the claimant. The relevant documents i.e. Statement of Account, IT returns and GST certificate are in the name of his father Govinda Swamy. Therefore, the appellant has requested this Court to set aside the award of the Tribunal.

¶70

Heard the arguments of learned counsel of both sides.

¶71

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these

¶72

appeals are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The injured claimant – G. Prakash met with an accident on 05.12.2019 and filed claim petition against Ganapathi and Ajith Kumar R, who are -respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the claim petition. There was no insurance to the motorcycle. The Tribunal observed that as per Exhibit R1 - delivery note, respondent No.2 has taken the delivery of Yamaha FZ16 motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-HH-9010 from respondent No.1 on 10.01.2018. In the crossexamination, respondent No.2 admitted that he purchased it from respondent No.1 on 10.01.2018 for Rs.29,000/-. But, the vehicle stands in the name of respondent No.1 till today. He has not got it transferred in his name. In the cross examination, respondent No.2 has also admitted that he has already sold it out in favour of unknown person through OLX. In view of admission of respondent No.2 regarding purchase of the vehicle and also in view of the fact that vehicle was still registered in the name of respondent No.1, the Tribunal assessed the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 as 50% among each of them and directed both of them to deposit the amount within 60 days.

¶76

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he stated that his

¶79

name is Prakash G, son of Govinda Swamy. But in the license, it was mentioned as Govinda Swamy Prakash. He stated that he was riding motorcycle since 2005. He had a DL but it was lost in the accident. He did not complain to the police about loss of DL and he obtained DL from Chengalpattu, Chennai RTO Office and he has not applied to the RTO for duplicate DL. He further stated that while he was entering the main road from cross road, the offending motorbike came from right side and he knows about the rules of riding the motorcycle. He stated that he has to give way to the vehicles coming from right side while crossing the road and that an auto rickshaw came at the first instance while crossing the road. It was suggested to P.W.1 that he fell down by dashing the auto rickshaw, but he denied it. P.W.1 further stated that he will produce the driving licence in course of time, but he has not produced it later. P.W.1 has further stated that the number of the offending motorcycle is KA-05-HH-9010, and his motorcycle number is KA-51-EX-7010 and it was insured.

¶80

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

In the cross-examination of R.W.1 (Ajith Kumar), he has stated that no receipts taken from the owner-Ganapathi with regard to the vehicle No.KA-05-HH-9010 and he has not received any Form 29 and 30 from Ganapathi or his brother. R.W.1 has further stated that he sold the motorcycle through OLX, but he does not know to whom he sold it.

¶83

The claimant filed his statement in which he stated that while he was riding Honda Activa vehicle KA-51-EX-7010 towards Bangalore, when he tried to take right turn towards Begur main road, at that time, rider of the motorcycle FZ No.KA-05-HH-9010 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, overtook an unknown auto rickshaw, dashed his vehicle. As a result, he sustained grievous injury to the right leg and immediately, he was shifted to hospital. The rider of the motorcycle ran away from the spot by leaving the motorcycle at the spot of the accident. To that effect, he gave statement to the police and also filed a translated copy of the spot mahazar.

¶84

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Now, it is for the Court to decide as to whether the liability fixed upon by the Tribunal against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in claim petition in the ratio of 50% by each of them, is on proper appreciation of facts or not ?

¶87

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.487 of 2024, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs RESHMA AND OTHERS reported in (2015)3 SCC 679 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶88

“On a plain reading of the aforesaid definition of “owner” in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is demonstrable that a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle and, where motor vehicle is the subject of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is the owner. It also stipulates that in case of a minor, the guardian of such a minor shall be treated as the owner. Thus, the intention of the legislature in case of a minor is mandated to treat the guardian of such a minor as the 'owner'. This is the first exception to the definition of the term 'owner'. The second exception that has been carved out is that in relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of hirepurchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation,

¶89

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement is the owner. Notably, the legislature has deliberately carved out these exceptions from registered owners thereby making the guardian of a minor liable, and the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreements mentioned in the dictionary clause to be the owners for the purposes of this Act.”

¶92

“When the intention of the legislature is quite clear to the effect that a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control and there is evidence on record that Respondent 2, without insurance plied the vehicle in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 146 of the 1988 ACT”

¶93

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as follows:

¶94

7. Criticising the impugned award and the order passed in appeal, learned senior counsel has submitted that the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Act would not cover a financer who has entered into a hypothecation agreement with the borrower who is in possession and control of the vehicle. The learned senior counsel would contend that Clauses 16 and 17 of the agreement have nothing to do with the financer's liability, for Section 146 of the Act requires the owner to insure the vehicle before it plies on the road and in the case at hand the borrower, who was in possession and control of the vehicle in question, in a clandestine manner without paying the insured amount and getting the vehicle insured had taken the vehicle the same day from the dealer and got it insured afterwards. It is urged by him that the role of the bank would come in when there is failure to insure the vehicle and, in any case, that will not fasten a statutory

¶95

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

liability on the financer to pay the compensation to the third party, for the vehicle is not on the road by the financer or at is instance. Elaborating further, it is submitted by him that if the owner does not pay, the bank will pay the insurance company and recover it from the borrower and hence, it would be inapposite to interpret the contract in a different way to fasten the liability on the financer. It is canvassed by him that there is no stipulation in the agreement that the financer would indemnify the borrower against the third party in the event of an accident and in the absence of such a postulate the interpretation placed by the High Court is absolutely erroneous.”

¶98

The learned counsel relied upon another case in M/s Marwar

¶99

Tent Factory Vs. Union of India (1990)1 SCC 71, when the

¶100

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶101

“16. In the instant case, in view of the terms and conditions of the contract embodied in clause 11 of the schedule of acceptance of tender regarding the place of delivery ‘f.o.r. Jodhpur’, the property in the goods passed immediately on from the seller after delivering the goods and loading the same in the railway wagons at Jodhpur for transmission to the buyer, the consignee, without reserving any right of disposal. The seller is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract only under Section 26 of the said Act, the goods remained at seller's risk until the property therein is transferred to the buyer. As stated earlier that the property in goods has been transferred to the buyer by the seller by delivery of the goods and loading the same at Jodhpur in railway wagons. In this

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶103

16 -

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

connection reference may be made to Section 39(1) of the said Act. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 as well as the terms and conditions of delivery i.e. ‘f.o.r. Jodhpur’ the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the property in the goods together with the risk passed from the seller to the buyer i.e. from consignor to the consignee as soon as the goods were loaded in the railway wagons at Jodhpur as per the terms of delivery i.e. f.o.r. Jodhpur. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that the risk throughout remained with the appellant until the goods were actually delivered to the Commandant, COD, Kanpur is wholly wrong and illegal. The further finding of the trial court that the risk was governed with the condition No. 4(1) of the schedule of acceptance of tender and the property in the goods i.e. the tents did not pass until the same were actually delivered to the Commandant, COD, Kanpur and the Commandant, COD, Kanpur was not liable for loss of the tents during the period of transit by the railways is also illegal and bad. As stated hereinbefore on consideration of the place of delivery as well as the terms of delivery embodied in clause 11 of the schedule of acceptance of tender, the property in the goods along with the risk in the goods passed from the appellant to respondent 5 when the goods were delivered and despatched by railway wagons at Jodhpur i.e. FOR, Jodhpur. The consignee, Commandant, COD, Kanpur is therefore, liable for the price of 224 tents which was deducted by him from the other bills of the appellant. The findings of the trial court which were confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the claim of the plaintiff-appellant should be decreed.”

¶106

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

The Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PURNYA KALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2014)14 SCC 142 , in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶109

“it provides that a vehicle may be released from requisition after service of notice in writing on owner to take delivery of vehicle on or within such date and from such place or from such person as may be specified therein”

¶110

“The High Court, without adverting to Section 5 of the Assam Requisition e and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968, merely on the basis of the definition of "owner" as contained in Section 2(30) of the MV Act, 1988 calculated the award payable by the owner of the vehicle failing to appreciate that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was under the requisition of Respondent 1 State of Assam under the provisions of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. Therefore, the State of Assam was squarely covered under the definition of "owner" as contained in Section 2(30) of the MV Act, 1988. The High Court failed to appreciate the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of "owner" a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to the effect

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶112

18 -

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the "owner" and not the registered owner alone. The High Court further failed to appreciate the legislative intention that the registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle was not in his possession and control. The High Court also failed to appreciate that Section 146 of the MV Act, 1988 requires that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without an insurance policy meeting the requirements of Chapter XI of MV Act, 1988 and the State Government has violated this statutory provision. The Tribunal also erred in accepting the allegation of Respondent 2 that the vehicle was released on the fdate of the accident at 10.30 a.m. and the accident occurred at 10.30 a.m. without any evidence even though in the claim petition, it was stated that the accident had occurred at 10.15 a.m.”

¶115

“The High Court failed to appreciate the underlying legislative intention in including in the definition of "owner" a person in possession of a vehicle either under an agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation or under a hire-purchase agreement to the effect that a person in control and possession of the vehicle should be construed as the "owner" and not alone the registered owner. The High Court further failed to appreciate the legislative intention that the registered owner of the vehicle

¶116

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

should not be held liable if the vehicle was not in his possession and control.”

¶119

Learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.7602 of 2023, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BRIJ BIHARI GUPTA Vs. MANMET AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1650 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶120

“10. There is considerable reliance placed by the insurer on the fact that the appellant had received the vehicle from the Magistrate's Court, asserting his ownership. The order directing handing over the vehicle to the appellant is produced as Annexure-R/4, in IA No. 190313/2022, where it is indicated that even at that point the registered owner's name was not changed. The registered owner was present before the Magistrate as we see from the order and while ordering handing over of the vehicle, the applicant/appellant was directed to change the ownership within 30 days. Hence obviously the balance consideration of Rs. 10,000/- had not been paid till that date. The transfer of the registration as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988² requires the transferee to report the fact of transfer in the prescribed form to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is affected within 14 days of the transfer. There is no contention raised by the registered owner that he made such a report as required under Section 50(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Hence

¶121

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

the ownership was with the registered owner even at the time of the accident and it is his liability to compensate the victims in the accident, which also has to be indemnified by the insurer. We also notice that in Naveen Kuma r¹ , the definition of owner in the Act of 1988 was interpreted to facilitate fulfilment of the object of the law, which was not to burden the claimant to follow the trail of successive transfers. The liability to pay falls squarely on the registered owner, even if there has been successive transfers which has to be indemnified by the insurer.”

¶124

The learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of

¶125

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAVEEN KUMAR Vs.

¶126

VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 1 ,

¶127

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶128

“Having regard to definition of "owner" under S. 2(30) of MV Act, 1988, held, the person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered (i.e. whose name is reflected in records of Registering Authority) would be treated as "owner" of vehicle for purposes of MV Act - Only where a person is a minor, the guardian of that minor would be treated as owner, and where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation or is under requisition, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement or under requisition is treated as owner-In this regard, departure made by Parliament from definition of "owner" contained in S. 2(19) of old MV Act of 1939, noticed

¶129

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

Considering the principle underlying the provisions of S. 2(30) of new MV Act, held, where a registered owner of vehicle (like R-1 herein) despite transferring/selling his vehicle to another person continues to be reflected in records of Registering Authority as owner of that vehicle, he would be treated as owner of the vehicle for purposes of MV Act and would not stand absolved of his liability as owner under the said Act - To hold otherwise would be to defcat the salutary object and purpose of MV Act, 1988”

¶132

6. The expression ‘owner’ is defined in Section 2(30) of the Act, 1988, thus:

¶133

“2. (30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.”

¶134

The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering

¶135

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the "owner" of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him.”

¶138

When the claimant approached the Tribunal for compensation in MVC No.2548 of 2020, the Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted an amount of Rs.14,37,000/-, but fixed up the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein equally and directed both of them to deposit the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the respective appeals contending that they are not liable to pay the compensation.

¶139

Facts of each case differs and it is for the Court to decide the case based on the facts of a particular case. Admittedly, respondent No.1-Ganapathi is the registered owner of the vehicle, and he stated that in January 2018, he handed over the possession and custody of the vehicle to one Umesh,

¶140

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

who is a two wheeler mechanic, who sold the vehicle to respondent No.2- Ajith Kumar. As on the date of accident, respondent No.1-Ganapathi was not in possession of the vehicle and he sold and delivered it on 10.01.2018 itself. The accident occurred on 05.12.2019 and as on the date of the accident, he was not in possession of the vehicle. As such, he is not liable to pay any compensation. Charge sheet is filed against Umesh, rider of the motorcycle and also against respondent No.1-Ganapathy for an offence of Section 146 read with Section 196 of M.V. Act.

¶143

As per police papers and as on the date of accident, respondent No.1-Ganapathi was the owner of the offending vehicle. It was observed by the Tribunal in the judgment that as on that day, RC was in the name of respondent No.1Ganapathi. But in the written statement, respondent No.1Ganapathi has stated that he has already sold out motorcycle in favour of respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar and also filed delivery note to say that it was delivered to respondent No.2 on 10.01.2018 itself.

¶144

NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶145

24 -

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

Respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar, in the cross examination, has deposed that he purchased the motorcycle on 10.01.2018 for Rs.29,000/- and the vehicle was standing in the name of respondent No.1-Ganapathi till that day and he has not got it transferred in his name. But, respondent No.2 added that he sold out the motorcycle in favour of unknown person through OLX.

¶148

Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the vehicle was not in possession of respondent No.1-Ganapathi and the respondent No.2 stated that he sold it out to unknown person. As such, it is not in possession of respondent No.2 at the time of the accident. But he has not stated to whom, he sold it out and when he sold it out to ensure whether as on the date of accident, vehicle was in the name of respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar or in the name of the person who purchased it through OLX. But he admitted regarding the purchase of vehicle from respondent No.1-Ganapathi and delivering of same on 10.01.2018 as per Exhibit R.1. Therefore, it can be presumed that as on the date of accident, respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar was in possession of the vehicle as per his own admission.

¶149

25 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

The definition of owner as per Section 2(30) of the

¶152

Motor Vehicle Act, reads as follows:

¶153

“Owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;”

¶154

As per the said definition, if the person in whose

¶155

name motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle. If such person is a minor, guardian is the owner of the vehicle. If the motor cycle is subject to hire purchase, agreement or lease agreement or hypothecation, then the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is the owner of the vehicle. Though the vehicle was sold by respondent No.1-Ganapathi to respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar in the year 2018, neither respondent No.1-Ganapathi transferred the vehicle in the name of respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar and respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar has not got it transferred in his name within 14 days as required under the law, but he sold it

¶156

26 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

to another person as if he was the owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that legal heirs of the victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty and the claimant who claimed compensation should not be burdened with the following trial of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registered authority and accordingly, held that liability is to be fixed on the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶159

In the present cases, Mistake lies on both respondent No.1-Ganapathi and respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar. Respondent No.1-Ganapathi has not registered the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar. So also, respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar has not got it registered in his name, but sold it to another person presuming himself as owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and fixed the liability on respondent No.1-Ganapathi and respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar equally, i.e. 50% on each of them. This court finds no reason to interfere with the said order.

¶160

27 - NC: 2026:KHC:24221 MFA No. 7602 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 487 of 2024

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

Both of them disputed the income taken by the Tribunal. Tribunal rightly considered Oral and documentary evidence on record and taken the income, which needs no interference. This Court finds no reason to interference the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal and it is confirmed.

¶163

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶164

Both the appeals stand dismissed, confirming the

¶165

impugned order of the Tribunal.

¶166

Respondent No.1-Ganapathi and respondent No.2-Ajith Kumar before the Tribunal are directed to deposit compensation equally i.e. 50% each, within one month from the date of the order.

¶167

On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶168

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶169

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Ajith Kumar R v. Sri. Prakash G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ajith Kumar R v. Sri. Prakash G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parvathi Vs Basavaraju

The Divisional Manager Vs Lakshmi

The Branch Manager, Vs R. Varshitha

Sri.Rajanna Vs the Manager

Sri. Chowdappa Vs the Managing Director

Smt Rajeshwari Vs Sri Beerappa Koralli