Bangalore District Court
Karthik Kumar.K vs Muniyappa.A on 12 June, 2026
KABC0B0008062022
BEFORE THE MACT & XV ADDL., JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19)
Dated this the 12th day of June 2026
Present:
Sri. Mohan Sadashiv Pol,
B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
MVC.No.2899/2022
1) Sri. K. Karthik Kumar,
S/o. K. Sreenivasulu,
Age 32 years,
R/at No.2-1205/1,
Padmavathinagar, Pileru,
Kondreddigaripalle,
Chittoor, Andhrapradesh-517 214.
..... Petitioner
(By Sri.T.M.Adv.,)
-V/s-
1) Sri. Muniyappa A.
S/o. Late. Annayappa,
No.80/1, 1st Main Road,
7th Cross, Yemalur,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Bangalore-560 037. ..... Respondent
(Owner of Motorcycle No.KA-03/EW-3292)
(By Sri.D.M. Adv.,)
SCCH-19 2 MVC 2899/2022
Date of Institution of Petition : 03-06-2022
Nature of Petition : U/Sec.166 of MV Act.
Date of Commencement of : 17-10-2022
Recording of Evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 12-06-2026
Judgment
Total Duration : Year Months Days
04 00 09
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition U/Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 for claiming compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, on
06-10-2021 at about 10.00p.m. he was riding a
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03/AD-5522 on Varthur
Main Road, Bangalore and reached near to Varthur Govt
School, at that time, the rider of the another motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-3292 drove it, in a rash and
negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life, came
at high speed and dashed against the petitioner’s
motorcycle, caused the accident, as a result of forced
impact, petitioner was fell down and sustained grievous
injuries.
SCCH-19 3 MVC 2899/2022
3. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Columbia
Asia Hospital, Whitefield, Bangalore and admitted as an
inpatient, he sustained severe head injury sub dural
hemorage commuted fracture of both orbit, frontal bone,
fracture of maxilla and other facial injuries. He underwent
surgeries for the said fractures, the petitioner is still
under treatment and he was spent more than
Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses, he
require one more surgery for removal of implants. The
petitioner cannot do his activities as earlier to the
accident and unable to do his job.
4. It is further stated that, prior to the accident,
petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about 32 years,
he was working as an Employee in Balam Enterprises and
earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries,
he is not able to do his work and lost his earnings, he is
suffering from mental shock and mental agony and also
facing great financial difficulties.
5. It is stated that, the accident in question was due to
the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the
Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-3292, against
whom the Whitefield Traffic Police have registered the
case in Cr.No.066/2021 P/U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC.
Hence, the respondent being the Owner of the offending
SCCH-19 4 MVC 2899/2022
vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed
to allow the petition.
6. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent has
appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed
objections to the main petition.
7. The Respondent in his objection to the main petition
contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in
law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It
is admitted that, he is the RC owner of the motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-3292 and it was sold to one
Mr. Yellappa S/o. Late. Muniyappa R/o. Panathur Village
and it was ridden by his son Vijay Kumar at the time of
accident and further handed over to one Girish Mohan on
09-10-2013. It is further contended that, the said
Yellappa S/o. Muniyappa expired recently and the said
vehicle was in the custody of said Vijay Kumar and the
said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of
the said Vijay Kumar and the Whitefield Traffic Police
have filed charge sheet against the said rider. Further
contended that, the said accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent act of the petitioner, however, the
petitioner and his brother Vijay Kumar have colluded with
the Police and filed false complaint and false charge sheet
against the rider of his motorcycle. The petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary party. The respondent has
SCCH-19 5 MVC 2899/2022
denied the all averments of the petition. Hence, on all
these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. On basis of the pleadings and materials, this
Tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, on
06-10-2021 at about 10.00 pm when he
was riding a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.AP-03/AD-5522 proceeding on
Varthur Main Road, Bangalore, when he
reached Opp. To Govt. School, Varthur,
at that time rider of one Motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-3292 drove
the same in a rash and negligent
manner, came at high speed and dashed
to the petitioner’s motorcycle. As a result
the petitioner fell down and sustained
grievous injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? if so, to what amount
and from whom?
3) What order or award?
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined
himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2 and
got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to 16. The
respondent got examined 07 witnesses as RW.1 to RW.7
and got marked the documents as per Ex.R.1 to R.10.
Out of it, the evidence of RW6 has been got discarded by
the respondent due to typographical mistakes.
SCCH-19 6 MVC 2899/2022
10. Heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner. Ld. Counsel for respondent files written
arguments along with the citations. Perused the materials
available on hand.
11. For the following reasons, this Tribunal has
answered to the above Issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
12. ISSUE No.1: The petitioner filed this petition against
the respondent for claiming compensation due to injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident, that occurred
on 06-10-2021.
13. The petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and
reiterated the entire contention of petition and got marked
13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Ex.P.1 is the copy of
F.I.R. Ex.P.2 is the copy of Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the copy
of Re-Statement, Ex.P.4 is the copy of Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P.5 is the copy of Sketch, Ex.P.6 is the copy of IMV
Report, Ex.P.7 is the copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.P.8 is
the copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9 is the copy of Notice
U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.10 is the copy of Reply to the
Notice, Ex.P.11 is the 3 Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.12 is
SCCH-19 7 MVC 2899/2022
the Medical Bills and Ex.P.13 is the notarized copy of
Aadhaar Card of the petitioner. In the cross-examination
he has denied that, the accident took place due to his
negligence and there is no negligence on the part of the
rider of the offending vehicle.
14. The petitioner got examined Dr. Sreedhara K.C. who
is the Consultant Neuro Physician &
Rehabilitation/Mental Health and MLC Consultant at
Deepashri Hospital and Neuro Rehabilitation Center
Bangalore as PW.2 and got marked 03 documents as
Ex.P.14 to 16. Ex.P.14 is the recent Examination Report
with Photo Copy of Disability Assessment Manual,
Ex.P.15 is the Neuro Psychological Report given by Dr.
Sowmya and Ex.P.16 is the CT Scan Film-2, Report-1.
15. The respondent has examined the PSI of Whitefield
Traffic Police Station as RW.1 and got marked 02
documents as per Ex.R.1 and R.2. Ex.P.1 is the MLC of
the accused and Ex.R.2 is the MLC of the petitioner. In
chief-examination he has deposed that, he visited the
spot, conducted spot panchanama in the presence of
panchas and he seized the offending vehicle which caused
the accident and the driver had no DL and vehicle had no
insurance. In the cross-examination he has stated that,
the rider of offending vehicle Vijaykumar was under the
alcohol influence.
SCCH-19 8 MVC 2899/2022
16. Further, the respondent got examined the
independent witnesses of the chargesheet as RW2 to 5.
RW.2 has deposed that, he went to the accident spot and
heard that, Vijayakumar rashly drove his motorcycle by
consuming the alcohol. RW.3 has deposed that, he heard
about the accident and went to the hospital and saw the
petitioner. RW.4 & 5 have deposed that, they went to the
police station to lodge the complaint.
17. Further, the respondent got examined his son by
name Sri. Chandramohan M. as RW.7 and got marked 8
documents as per Ex.R.3 to R.10. Ex.R.3 is the delivery
note, Ex.R.4 is the OP Records, Ex.R.5 is the SPA, Ex.R.6
is the facebook pages of the account of the petitioner.
Ex.R.7 to 10 are the witnesses statements. He has
deposed that, he is the SP holder of the respondent, the
respondent has sold his vehicle bearing No.KA-03/EW-
3292 to one Mr. Yellappa on 25-02-2007, only after this
accident they came to know that the motorcycle still stood
in the name of the respondent. The purchaser Yellappa
has not got transferred the motorcycle in his name. The
son of said Yellappa has caused the accident, hence the
respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. In
cross-examination, he has admitted that, on 06-10-2021
the said motorcycle was standing in the name of his
father and still it is standing in the name of his father.
SCCH-19 9 MVC 2899/2022
His father has got released the vehicle from the police
station. Further, he has admitted that the police have
filed charge sheet against his father and he has paid the
fine.
18. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently
argued that, the accident took place due to the fault of
the rider of the offending vehicle and the respondent is
liable to pay the compensation being the owner of the
offending vehicle. Hence, prayed to award the
compensation.
19. Ld. Counsel for respondent has filed written
arguments contending that, the vehicle has been sold to
one Mr. Yellappa on 25-02-2007 much prior to the
accident and his son Mr. Vijaykumar was riding the
vehicle. The vehicle was not in the possession and control
of the respondent at the time of the accident. The liability
is on the rider of the motorcycle as he was the actual
possessor and having control over the vehicle. Further Ld.
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1672/2010
between Purnya Kala Devi Vs. State of Assam &
Another, further in Civil Appeal No.5796/2007 between
National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Deepa Devi & Others, in
Civil Appeal No.10192/2024 in between Vaibhav Jain
Vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd., and in Civil Appeal
SCCH-19 10 MVC 2899/2022
No.4615/2023 between Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang
and Another.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.5 the Sketch it appears that, the
petitioner was moving towards Whitefield on his left side,
at that time, the offending vehicle came from opposite
direction towards towards Gunjur at Varthur College
Road Junction, the rider took his motorcycle towards
right side and caused the accident, though there is
sufficient space for moving the offending motorcycle on its
left side of the road, the rider of offending vehicle took his
vehicle to his right side and dashed to the petitioner and
caused the accident. On perusal of these documents, it
appears that, the rider of offending vehicle was in the
influence of alcohol and hold no valid D.L. moreover, the
respondent himself has admitted in his objections that
this accident took place due the negligence of the rider of
the offending motorcycle. Therefore, it is clear that, this
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle.
21. On perusal of Ex.P.1-FIR, Ex.P.2-Complaint, Ex.P.3-
Complaint Re-statement, Ex.P.4-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5-
Sketch, Ex.P.6-IMV Report, Ex.P.8-Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9-
Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act and Ex.P.10-Reply to the
Notice, it appears that, on the date of accident, petitioner
was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03/AD-5522
SCCH-19 11 MVC 2899/2022
on Varthur Main Road, Bangalore and reached near to
Varthur Govt School, at that time, the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-3292 drove it, in a
rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human
life, came at high speed and dashed against the
petitioner’s motorcycle, caused the accident. Hence, the
Whitefield Traffic Police have filed charge sheet against
driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable
U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC & 3(1) r/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
But, there is no any material to hold that, there is a
contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
2011 SAR(Civil) 319 Kausum and Others V/s Satbir
and Others held that, in the petition for compensation
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act.1988 the petitioner has
to prove the incident only on the preponderance of the
probabilities and standard of proof beyond all reasonable
doubt is not required.
23. After careful scrutiny of Ex.P.1 the copy of FIR, Ex.P.2
the copy of Complaint, Ex.P.3 the copy of statement,
Ex.P.4 the copy of Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 the copy of
Sketch, Ex.P.6 the copy of IMV Report, Ex.P.8 the copy of
Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9 the copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV
Act and Ex.P.10 the copy of Reply to the Notice, it appears
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act
SCCH-19 12 MVC 2899/2022
of the rider of Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EW-
3292. Hence, this Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the
Affirmative.
24. ISSUE No.2:- The petitioner claiming the
compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with respect to
the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The
petitioner produced wound certificate issued by Columbia
Asia Hospital, Bangalore and discharge summaries issued
by Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore and prayed to award
compensation amount. The respondent not disputed the
said documents. On perusal of the Wound Certificate at
Ex.P.7, it is discloses that the petitioner has sustained (1)
Lacerated wound present over frontal region of scalp head
and bone deep, (2) Head injury with (a) acute sub-dural
hemorrhage right fronto parietal region, inter-hemispheric
Felix (b) Acute sub-arachanoid hemorrhage bilateral
fronto parietal sylvian fissures and right temporal sulci (c)
Acute sub arachionoid hemorrhage bilateral fronto
parietal (d) multifocal hemorrhage contusion frontal lobes
(e) Comminuted depressed fractures frontal bones (f)
Displaced fracture of bilateral sphenoid sinuses and
maxillary sinuses (g) Comminuted fracture both orbital
walls of fracture medial pterygoid plate, (h) Fracture left
frontal process of mascilla and nasal septum and (i)
Fracture right zygomatic arch. On perusal of the said
SCCH-19 13 MVC 2899/2022
injuries, the Doctor has opinion that the injury No.1 is
simple in nature and injury No.2(a) to 2(i) are grievous in
nature. Further on perusal of Ex.P.11 discharge
summaries of Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore, wherein the
diagnosis that, Severe TBI with multiple facial bone
fracture and discharge diagnosis that, K/C/O RTA with
severe TBI with multiple facial bone fractures and CSF
rhinorrhoea. Patient was admitted with low GCS and CSF
rhinorrhea secondary severe head injury. Patient
underwent multiple surgeries. Patient gradually improved
to present state. Patient discharged in stable. Procedure
performed that Craniotomy/Craneactomy acute subdural
hematomas/ Endorscopic repair of CSF leak. The
petitioner was admitted on 07-10-2021 and discharged on
05-11-2021. Further, the petitioner was admitted on 21-
01-2022 and discharged on 24-01-2022 and further
admitted on 27-03-2022 and discharged on 31-03-2022.
Therefore, taking all these facts and nature of injuries, as
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and admitted in
the hospital, this Tribunal is of the opinion that,
petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- as reasonable compensation under the
head of pain and suffering.
25. The petitioner produced medical bills which is
marked as Ex.P.12. As per the bills marked at Ex.P.12,
SCCH-19 14 MVC 2899/2022
the petitioner has spent Rs.14,32,983/- towards medical
expenses. The respondents have not made out any
grounds to disbelieve the medical bills. On perusal of the
said medical bills and also considering the bills and also
treatment taken by the petitioner in the hospital, the
petitioner is entitled to claim the medical bills amount of
Rs.14,32,983/- under the head of medical expenditure.
26. As per Ex.P.11 discharge summary, the petitioner
took treatment at Manipal Hospitals, Bengaluru from 07-
10-2021 to 05-11-2021, on 21-01-2022 to 24-01-2022,
and further admitted on 27-03-2022 to 31-03-2022 i.e.,
40 days. Therefore, by considering the period of treatment
taken as inpatient this tribunal awarded reasonable
compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head
Transportation, Food, Nourishment and Conveyance
Charges.
27. To prove the assessment of disability, the petitioner
got examined Dr. Sreedhara K.C. who is the Consultant
Neuro Physician & Rehabilitation/Mental Health and MLC
Consultant at Deepashri Hospital and Neuro
Rehabilitation Center as PW.2. In the chief-examination
affidavit the doctor deposed that, he examined the
petitioner on 06-02-2023, he diagnosed that severe TBI
with multiple facial bone fracture/CSF
rhinborrahoea/Scar Epilepsy S/P Decompressive
SCCH-19 15 MVC 2899/2022
craniotomy for cranioplasty. CT Scan Brain done at
Nikhara Diagnostic Centre on 06/02/2023 and the report
reveals that, evidence of right fronto temporal craniotomy
defect noted/acute subdural hemorrhage of maximum
thickness 4.5 mm noted along right fronto-temporal
convexity/gliotic changes noted involving bilateral
basifrontal lobes/chronic infarct noted in right internal
capsule/mild erosions of right frontal bone noted at the
craniotomy site/Mild mucosal thickening noted in
bilateral ethmoidal and right maxillary sinuses. Neuro
psychological assessment report given by Dr. Sowmya
Suggestive of pre frontal cortex, bilateral dorsolateral,
temporal lobe, frontal lobe involvement. Advised cognitive
retaining. So Neuro Psychological profile suggestive of
cognitive disability. He has assessed the mild disability at
40% and 33.3% to the whole body. In the cross-
examination he had stated that, he is not the treated
doctor, he had gone through the follow up treatment
records, but he had not produced any follow up treatment
records. In case of 100% of profound disability there
would be complete memory loss. However, by considering
the nature of the injuries and evidence of the doctor, this
Tribunal took the disability of the Petitioner at 25% to the
whole body.
SCCH-19 16 MVC 2899/2022
28. It is contended that, prior to the accident, the
petitioner was working as an employee in Balam
Enterprises and he was earning Rs.40,000/-p.m. and due
to accidental injuries he is not able to do his work as
before the accident. The petitioner had not produced any
documents to prove his income and avocation. This
accident occurred in the year 2021. In present days the
coolie worker get Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day. However,
by considering the age and occupation of petitioner this
Tribunal taken the monthly income of the petitioner at
Rs.15,000/-.
29. In support of age, the petitioner produced notarized
copy of his D.L., which is marked as Ex.P.13. As per said
document the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as
15-02-1990. In the wound certificate and discharge
summary, age of the petitioner is shown as 32 and 31
years respectively. This accident occurred in the year
2021. Therefore, age of the petitioner is considered as 31
years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier
applicable is 16 which comes as follows:
Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16 x 25% = Rs.7,20,000/-
Hence, this Tribunal award Rs.7,20,000/- under
the head loss of future earning capacity on account of
disability.
SCCH-19 17 MVC 2899/2022
30. The petitioner also sought for expenses towards
future medicine for further treatment. In the chief-
examination affidavit the petitioner deposed that, he is
forced to spent huge amount for future medication of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The Doctor PW.2 has not deposed
anything about the future treatment. However, by
considering the age and nature of injuries and evidence of
the doctor, this Tribunal has award reasonable
compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head future
medical expenses. (Which does not carry any interest).
31. The petitioner stated that, he is working as an
employee at Balam Enterprises and due to injuries
sustained in the accident, he is unable to do his work
and facing financial difficulties. This accident occurred
in the year 2021. However, by considering the age and
nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this
Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation amount of
Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of income during
laid up period.
32. The petitioner sustained grievous injury as shown in
the wound certificate and took treatment as an inpatient
about 174 days. Therefore, by considering this aspect and
the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this
Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.30,000/- as
SCCH-19 18 MVC 2899/2022
reasonable compensation under the head of loss of
amenities.
33. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary
evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as
follows:
Sl.
Under the Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 14,32,983/-
3. Transportation, Nourishment, Rs. 60,000/-
Conveyance and Attendant
charges.
4. Compensation on account of Rs. 7,20,000/-
permanent disability
5. Towards future medical Rs. 20,000/-
expenses
6. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 30,000/-
period.
7. Towards loss of amenities of Rs. 30,000/-
life
Total Rs. 23,92,983/-
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.23,92,983/-, which is rounded off to Rs.23,93,000/-.
SCCH-19 19 MVC 2899/2022
34. Interest:
In so far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in
MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd
20-03-2018) the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of
interest that can be awarded on Judgments cannot be
more than 6% p.a. and that since Sec.149 of M.V. Act
provides for the interest on Judgments, the interest to be
awarded in claim petitions has to be 6% p.a. (Excluding
the future medical expenses) and not more than that.
Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest
@6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
35. Liability:-
Respondent is the owner of the offending
Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/FW-3292. As
discussed in the Issue No.1 it is proved that, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of offending vehicle.
36. The respondent has contended that, he has sold the
offending vehicle to one Mr. Yellappa on 25-02-2007 itself
SCCH-19 20 MVC 2899/2022
and it is not in his possession and control. Therefore, he
is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
37. In support of his contention, his son RW.7, has
deposed that, the respondent has sold his vehicle to one
Mr. Yellappa on 25-02-2007, only after this accident they
came to know that the motorcycle still stood in the name
of respondent. The purchaser Yellappa has not got
transferred the motorcycle in his name. The son of said
Yellappa has caused the accident, hence the respondent
is not liable to pay the compensation. In cross-
examination he has admitted that, on 06-10-2021 the
said motorcycle was standing in the name of his father
and still it is standing in the name of his father. His
father has got released the vehicle from the police station.
Further, he has admitted that the police have filed charge
sheet against his father and he has paid the fine.
38. On perusal of the evidence of RW.7 it is clear that,
as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was
standing in the name of the respondent and the
respondent has got released the said vehicle from the
police station. Therefore, it appears that, the respondent
is the RC owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of
the accident and the respondent has got released the
motorcycle into his custody and it is in the possession of
the respondent only. The respondent has produced
SCCH-19 21 MVC 2899/2022
Ex.R.3 the delivery notice. On perusal of the same, it
appears that, the delivery of the vehicle has been given to
one Yellappa, but in support of the said documents, there
is nothing on record. Further, except Ex.R.3 the
respondent has not produced any supportive materials to
show the alleged transaction. However, even though the
deliver note is produced before this Court, RW.7 himself
has admitted that, the respondent is the RC owner of the
offending vehicle.
39. Ld. Counsel for respondent has submitted his
written arguments contending that, the vehicle has
been sold and it was not in the possession and control
of the respondent at the time of the accident. The
liability is on the rider of the motorcycle being the
actual possessor and having control over the vehicle. In
support his version, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.1672/2010 between Purnya Kala
Devi Vs. State of Assam & Another, further in Civil
Appeal No.5796/2007 between National Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Deepa Devi & Others, in the said judgments
the vehicle was under the requisition of the State
Government. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that, the State being the possessor of the vehicle under
state requisition, they are liable to pay the
SCCH-19 22 MVC 2899/2022
compensation. Therefore, the facts and circumstances
of the above said cases are not applicable to the
present case.
40. Further, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10192/2024 between
Vaibhav Jain Vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
wherein the said judgment, the dispute was in between
the manufacturer and dealer with respect to the
ownership and possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the
facts and circumstances of the above said case are not
applicable to the present case.
41. Further, relief upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.4615/2023 between
Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Another. The
said judgment related to the election petitions.
Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the above
said case are not applicable to the present case.
42. The above said judgments relied by the Ld. Counsel
for the respondent are based on the principles that, where
a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire
purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in
possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated
as the owner. But, in the present case it is not the fact.
The respondent contends that, he has sold the motorcycle
SCCH-19 23 MVC 2899/2022
and possession was not with him, but, only RC books
stands in his name. Hence, it is clear that, the offending
vehicle stands in the name of respondent. Therefore,
respondent being the RC holder/owner is liable to pay the
compensation.
43. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 1 between Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay
Kumar & Ors has categorically held that the registered
owner of the offending vehicle is solely liable so far as the
liability is concerned, in para No. 12 has held as under:-
Para no. 12 …. The consistent thread of reasoning
which emerges from the above decisions is that in
view of the definition of the expression ‘owner’ in
Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the
motor vehicle stands registered who, for the
purposes of the Act, would be treated as the
‘owner’. However, where a person is a minor, the
guardian of the minor would be treated as the
owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an
agreement of hire purchase, lease or
hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement is treated as the
owner. In the situation such as the present where
the registered owner has purported to transfer the
vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records
of the registering authority as the owner of the
vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability.
Parliament has consciously introduced the
definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section
2(30), making a departure from the provisions of
Section 2(19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The
principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(3)
is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case
SCCH-19 24 MVC 2899/2022of 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 trial of successive
transfers, which are not registered with the
registering authority. To hold otherwise would be
defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act.
Hence, the interpretation to be placed must
facilitate the fulfillment 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.
Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High
Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the
judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya
Kala Devi.
44. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in 2019(1) RCR (Civil) 372 between
Parkash Chand Daga v Saveta Sharma and others
has held that, so long the name of the transferor
continues in the RTO’s record, he remains liable to
third person in case of accident.
On the basis of the ratio laid down in the above
said judgments, it is clear that, the RC owner is liable
to pay the compensation. Therefore, in the light of the
above said discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation
to hold that the respondent who is the registered owner
as on the date of the accident has to be held liable.
SCCH-19 25 MVC 2899/2022
45. As discussed above, it is clear that, the RC book
is still standing in the name of the respondent. Hence,
respondent being the Owner is liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. As already discussed in
the Issue No.1 it is proved that, the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. Hence the respondent is liable to pay
compensation amount with interest to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Tribunal answered Issue No.2 Partly
in the Affirmative.
46. ISSUE No.3: For the foregoing reasons, this
Tribunal proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The claim petition filed by the petitioner
U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby
Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The petitioner is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.23,93,000/- with
interest @ 6% p.a., (Excluding future medical
expenses) from the date of petition till its
realization.
The Respondent is liable to pay compensation
to the petitioner and he is directed to deposit the
compensation amount together with 6% interest
within 60 days, from the date of this order.
After deposit, out of the compensation
amount Rs.18,93,000/- with interest shall be
released in favour of the petitioner with proper
SCCH-19 26 MVC 2899/2022identification (As the petitioner has incurred huge
amount towards medical expenses and also he
has to incur some expenses towards future
medication).
The remaining amount with interest shall
be deposited in the name of the petitioner in FD
at any nationalized Bank at the choice of the
petitioner for a period 03 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me
and pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of June 2026)
Digitally signed
MOHAN by MOHAN
SADASHIV POL
SADASHIV Date: (Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
POL
12:33:04 +0530 XV ASCJ & Member MACT,
2026.07.02Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri. K. Karthik Kumar. PW.2 : Dr. Sreedhara K.C.
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2 : Copy of Complaint. Ex.P.3 : Copy of Re-Statement. Ex.P.4 : Copy of Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.5 : Copy of Sketch. Ex.P.6 : Copy of IMV Report. Ex.P.7 : Copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P.8 : Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.9 : Copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P.10 : Copy of Reply to the Notice. Ex.P.11 : Discharge Summaries (3 in Nos.). SCCH-19 27 MVC 2899/2022 Ex.P.12 : Medical Bills (28 in Nos.) Ex.P.13 : N/c of D.L. Ex.P.14 : Medical Reports. Ex.P.15 : Neuro Psychological Report. Ex.P.16 : CT Scan with Report.
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
R.W.1 : Sri. T. Venugopal. R.W.2 : Sri. M.R. Suresh. R.W.3 : Sri. Eshwaraiah Kondeti. R.W.4 : Sri. P.M. Narayanaswamy. R.W.5 : Sri. Ramesh P.V. R.W.6 : Sri. Muniyappa A. (discarded) R.W.7 : Sri. Chandramohan M.
List of documents marked for Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : MLC of Driver of Offending vehicle.
Ex.R.2 : MLC of Petitioner.
Ex.R.3 : Delivery Note.
Ex.R.4 : Outpatient Record.
Ex.R.5 : Special Power of Attorney.
Ex.R.6 : Facebook Pages of Petitioner.
Ex.R.7 to 10 : Witness Statements.
Digitally signed
by MOHAN (Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
MOHAN SADASHIV POL XV ASCJ & Member MACT
SADASHIV Date:
POL 2026.07.02 Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
12:33:11
+0530
