Facts of the Case

This judgment disposes of two connected Miscellaneous First Appeals arising from a motor accident compensation award passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No. 2548/2020.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.14,37,612 with 6% interest per annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000) to the claimant. MFA No. 7602 of 2023 was filed by Ajith Kumar R against Prakash G and Ganapathi, while the connected MFA No. 487 of 2024 was filed by Ganapathi against Prakash G and Ajith Kumar R.

A key factual issue was ownership of the offending vehicle: it had been sold by Ganapathi to Ajith Kumar in 2018, but the transfer of registration was never completed by either party, and Ajith Kumar in turn sold the vehicle to a third person without registering it in his own name.

The Tribunal had apportioned liability to pay compensation equally (50:50) between Ganapathi (the registered owner) and Ajith Kumar (the person to whom the vehicle had been sold but not re-registered).

Issues Involved

  1. Who should be treated as the 'owner' liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where a vehicle has been sold but the transfer of registration was never completed?
  2. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant's income and quantum of compensation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Both appellants (Ganapathi and Ajith Kumar, in their respective appeals) disputed their liability to pay compensation and separately challenged the income figure adopted by the Tribunal in computing the award.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The claimant supported the Tribunal's finding that both the registered owner and the person in actual possession/control of the vehicle at the relevant time were liable, and that the income and compensation quantum fixed by the Tribunal were properly based on the oral and documentary evidence on record.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on the statutory definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act and Supreme Court precedent holding that legal heirs of accident victims should not be burdened with tracing unregistered chains of vehicle transfer, the Court held liability must be fixed on the registered owner.
  • Since neither Ganapathi (who sold but did not transfer registration) nor Ajith Kumar (who bought but did not register the vehicle in his name before reselling it) had complied with the registration requirements, the Court held that fault lay with both, and upheld the Tribunal's apportionment of liability equally between them.
  • The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment of income or the compensation amount, holding that the evidence had been properly considered.
  • Both appeals were dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's award; the respondents (Ganapathi and Ajith Kumar) were directed to deposit 50% each of the compensation within one month, after which the claimant could withdraw the full amount.

Important Clarification

This case is a useful reminder in motor accident law: sellers and buyers of vehicles who fail to complete the formal registration transfer within the time prescribed by law can both be held jointly liable to pay compensation if the vehicle is later involved in an accident, regardless of any private sale agreement between them.

Sections Involved

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173(1) (appeal) and the definition of 'owner'
  • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal procedure

Decision – In Favour of

Both cross-appeals were dismissed and the Tribunal's award was confirmed in favour of the claimant; liability to pay compensation was upheld equally against Ganapathi and Ajith Kumar, with neither appellant obtaining relief.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
  • Case Nos.: MFA No. 7602 of 2023 (MV-I) with MFA No. 487 of 2024 (MV-I)
  • Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:24221
  • Coram: Justice P Sree Sudha
  • Date: 25th April, 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.