Back
Karnataka High Court
Ramaiah Setty - Appellant
Versus
Prakash - Respondent
Decided On : 08-01-90
M.F.A. : 1638 of 1990
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Liability for Damages - The court found the appellant liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the accident, as the transfer of ownership claimed by the appellant was not proved. The appeal was dismissed as the amount in dispute was less than the threshold for appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed Rs. 32,500 in damages before the Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, the respondent in the case, disputed ownership of the vehicle and liability for damages. The Tribunal awarded the petitioner Rs. 1,650, including medical expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant liable to pay Rs. 1,650 as compensation to the petitioner, as the claimed transfer of ownership was not proved. The appeal was dismissed as the amount in dispute was less than the threshold for appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and liability for damages, maintainability of the appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the appellant liable for compensation as the claimed transfer of ownership was not proved. The appeal was dismissed as the amount in dispute was less than the threshold for appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
( 1 ) APPELLANT was respondent in M V. C. 1716/87. Against a claim of Rs. 32. 500/- by the petitioner in the said case before the Accident Claims Tribunal-Vlll, bangalore City, the petitioner therein was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,650/ -.
( 2 ) THE appellant's sole defence inthe said case was that he was not the owner of the vehicla and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any damages to any one muchless the claimant-petitioner. On evidence led, it has been found that the transfer he claimed to have effected in favour of one Ramachandra Naidu was not proved. Therefore, he has been held liable to pay Rs. 1,650/- as compensation including medical expenses to the petitioner therein.
( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows :"no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. "the appellant before us was the respondent in the Claims Tribunal, the only amount which he may dispute is Rs. 1,650/ -. Therefore, the amount in dispute in this appeal is less than Rs. 2,000/ -.
( 4 ) OFFICE objection is, therefore,correctly taken that the appeal is not maintainable.
( 5 ) APPEAL is dismissed as notmaintainable. Appeal Dismissed.
--- *** ---
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
