IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the rider's negligence directly caused the accident leading to the deceased's death, warranting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal, the petitioners are challenging the order of dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 17.01.2003 at about 10.30 p.m., the son of the petitioners by name C.Ramappa @ Ramachandrappa, the deceased, while walking by the side of the road near Chowdenahalli Gate, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Scooter bearing No.CRW-2637 was ridden in a high speed and dashed against the hind side of the deceased, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries to his both legs, he was admitted to SNR Hospital, Kolar. During the course of hospitalization, the deceased succumbed to death on 20.01.2003.

3.1. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners as dependants approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation against the owner and insurer of the scooter. Claim was opposed by the respondents. After taking the evidence and hearing both parties, the Tribunal by judgment dated 09.02.2009 allowed the claim petition assessing the compensation of Rs.2,52,888/-with interest @ 6% p.a. Questioning the said judgment, the owner of the scooter as well as the insurer have jointly filed an appeal before this Court in M.F.A.No.4308/2009 (MV). Vide order dated 08.04.2011, this Court set aside the judgment dated 09.02.2009 and remanded the matter to answer the following questions of law:

(i) Whether the deceased Ramappa died as a result of injury sustained by him in the motor accident?

(ii) On account of whose rash and negligent riding of the scooter, the accident occurred?

Post-remand, the parties have led further evidence and the Tribunal, after taking the evidence and hearing both parties, by the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2013 dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of Smt.Suguna R.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.B.Chethan, learned counsel for the owner of the scooter and Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

5. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that: the accident took place at 10.30 p.m. on 17.01.2003. The deceased was a pedestrian and he was walking on the road. When the deceased was admitted to SNR Hospital, he has given a specific statement on 18.01.2003 that one Anwar Basha, who is examined as RW-1 in this case on behalf of respondents, was the rider of the Scooter, who hit against him and on the basis of such complaint, FIR was registered against RW-1. Till death of the deceased, the rider of the scooter was RW-1/Anwar Basha only.

5.1. Anwar Basha is the brother of one Babajan and Khadarvali. Khadarvali is the driver of Police Jeep in K.G.F. Police Station. On 27.01.2003, the scooter in question was sold to Babajan by K.Asif, the 1st respondent. Since the deceased was died, the brother of Khadarvali has purchased the scooter and the FIR was filed against RW-1, since RW-1 was not holding driving licence, Khadarvali interfered in the Police investigation and got removed the name of RW-1 and got filed the charge sheet against one K.M.Ramesh, who is in no way connected with the accident in question.

5.2. At the first instance, there is no denial of accident and the petitioners from the day one till the filing of the claim petition asserting that Anwar Basha is the rider of the scooter. They never accepted K.M.Ramesh as the rider of the scooter. Behind the back of the petitioners, with the assistance of Khadarvali, charge sheet is filed.

5.3. The first respondent has admitted in the evidence that he has purchased the scooter one year prior to the accident from one Gangadhar and he has not changed the RC in his name, but he has obtained insurance policy in his name only as owner. Only after the accident, he has sold the scooter to Babajan. The Insurance Company has accepted that the first respondent is the owner o