The claimant's consistent evidence regarding vehicle involvement in the accident was upheld, emphasizing that discrepancies in vehicle identification do not absolve liability.

ORAL JU DGMENT

This appeal is filed by the insurer - respondent No.3 challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2013 passed in MVC.No.61/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MAMACT at Tarikere (for short 'Tribunal').

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case of claimant are that on 12.03.2011 at about 8.30 p.m on NH-206 before Vinayaka talkies of Tarikere town, the claimant was walking at the side of the road; at that time, the rider of motor bike bearing registration No.KA:18/U -3784 rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, for higher treatment, he was shifted to Kasturba hospital, Manipal. He spent huge amount towards treatment charges and he has been suffering from permanent disability. On these grounds, he has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

4. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed joint objections denying the contentions of the claimant. They have further contended that respondent No.1 was driving the said vehicle with proper care and caution. He was not responsible for the accident. It is further contended by respondent No.2 that said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 and it is liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Respondent No.3 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. It has stated that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. It also denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. From the rival contentions of the parties necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal.

8. Tribunal recorded evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The Tribunal examined Court Commissioner as CW-1 and marked documents at Exs.C1 to C4 and Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and marked documents as Ex.R-1.

9. Upon hearing both the parties, Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorbike by its rider; and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,89,000/-. The same is challenged by the respondent No.3 - Insurer in the present appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. I have anxiously perused the records.

12. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer vehemently contended that as per the case made out by the claimant in the claim petition as well as in the FIR, the vehicle involved in the accident was KA:18/U-3784. However, in the seizure and motor vehicle inspection report, vehicle number mentioned as KA:14/U-3784. He further contended that as per the seizure mahazar, vehicle was seized on 14.03.2011 between 4.00 p.m to 4.45 p.m, whereas Motor vehicle inspection report stated that intimation was received by the concerned police station on 14.03.2011 at 10.00 a.m. This indicates that, before the seizure of the vehicle, an intimation was sent to RTO to inspect the vehicle and give the report. Even in the medical evidence, vehicle number was not mentioned. These facts create serious doubts about the involvement of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA:18/U-3784, in the accident. However, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact. The vehicle No.KA:14/U- 3784 was not insured with respondent No.3. If the said vehicle was involved in the accident, then the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to set aside the im