This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to the 8MV

Act9 for short) by the Insurance Company challenging the

judgment and award dated 06.06.2013, passed in MVC

No.2267/2011, on the file of the VI Addl. Judge & MACT, at

Bengaluru (SCCH-2) (hereinafter referred to as 8the

Tribunal9 for short).

On 06.01.2001, claimant was proceeding as

pillion rider in Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-V-

9303 on Halagur-Kanankapura NH-209 road when they

reached Sony Petrol bunk bridge, at that time, the rider of

Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 came

3

from the opposite direction with high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and

dashed against claimant9s Motorcycle. Due to which, the

petitioner and the rider fell down and sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was

shifted to Halagur Govt. Hospital, wherein he was given

first aid and then shifted to Mandya Dist. Hospital, where

he was inpatient from 06.01.2011 to 13.1.2011. X-rays

were taken, which revealed fracture of right tibia shaft.

The claimant underwent ORIF and was discharged on

13.01.2011 with an advice for bed rest. It is averred that

the claimant has spent Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses,

transportation, food and nourishment.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant

under Section 163-A of the MV Act claiming compensation

for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The

Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record has

allowed the petition in-part, and awarded a compensation

of Rs.1,17,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till realization. The

4

Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant -

Insurance Company submitted that the rider of the Bajaj

Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 was rash and

negligent and dashed against the claimant9s motorcycle.

But, the owner and insurer of Bajaj Platina Motorcycle

bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 have not been made as parties.

He further submits that the rider of Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle

bearing No.KA-11-B-9303 was riding the Motorcycle

carefully. Therefore, the claimant being a pillion rider

ought to have claimed against the owner and insurer of the

Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 but

without doing so, he has made a claim against the non-

offending vehicle i.e., Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.

KA-11-V-9303. Therefore, he prays this Court to make

interference in the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal on this ground. He further submitted that the

FIR, complaint and the charge sheet are produced at

Exs.P-1 to P-3, the entire allegation is made against the

5

rider of the motorcycle Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing

No.KA-11-H-8044. When these are the admitted facts that

the entire accusation is made against the rider of the Bajaj

Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 but claim has

been made against the non-offending vehicle, which is not

correct.

He

further

submits

that

from

the

police

investigation and from the documents pertaining to the

investigation viz., FIR, compliant, Charge Sheet, Mahazar,

2 IMV Reports etc., the accusation is against the rider of

the Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044. He

further argued that the claimant has to be made a claim

before the Tribunal against the owner and insurer of the

Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-H-8044 and

they should have been made a party in the claim, then

that would have been correct approach. Therefore, he

prays to allow the appeal by setting-aside the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent No.1 3 claimant submitted that the petition

is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,

6

for the claim, the petition is proper. The respondent No.1

- claimant had fi