Fatal motorcycle accident claim. Owner appealed against Tribunal award, contending his vehicle was stolen before the accident and he had received an insurance settlement. The High Court held he remained the registered owner and liable; policy was not in force on accident date. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
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:
Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI
Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE R/AT NO.5 JADENAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
MAJOR, R/O PATOOR VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101.
…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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010388932013
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.
No.4-driver, herein in his objection statement before the Tribunal, has stated that he was not aware of the accident and
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010388932013
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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
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.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
driver was in possession of the vehicle in question. As such, he alone is responsible for the accident.
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010388932013
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.”
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010388932013
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010388932013
NC: 2026:KHC:36261 MFA No. 8011 of 2013
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010388932013
them. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order.
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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the registered owner remained liable to pay compensation after the vehicle was stolen and insurance claim settled.
Whether the insurer was liable given the policy had expired before the accident.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
J Krishne Gowda
Doddamunishyami
Anjinappa
Rathnamma
Ramesh
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
P Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
