THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.177/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL AND J.M.F.C.JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,30,862/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the respondents in MVC.No.177/2018 filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2019 passed in the said case by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Harihara.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 04.07.2017 at about 3.30 p.m. the i.e., the claimant and his friend one Basavanagowda were traveling from Bhanuvalli to Harihara for medical treatment. The claimant was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-17-EK-9996 and at that time, another motorcycle bearing No.KA-17-X-0358 rode by appellant No.3 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to which, the claimant and his friend sustained grievous injuries. As such, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.177/2018.

3. The Tribunal, after assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,30,862/- along with interest at the rate of 6%. Against the said order, the appellants/respondents preferred this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. There is no representation for the respondent/claimant.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that appellant No.1 has sold his motor cycle bearing No.KA-17-X-0358 to appellant No.2. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he was not able to transfer the RTC of the vehicle in the name of appellant No.2. He also contends that appellant No.3 who was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-17-X-0358 has also sustained injury due to the accident. As such, fixation of the liability on appellant Nos.1 and 2 by the Tribunal is not sustainable under law. Without considering those aspects, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the compensation to the claimant under different heads, which are liable to be reduced.

7. I have perused the impugned award. As could be gathered from the records, the accident in question is not disputed by the appellants before the Tribunal. Admittedly, there is no insurance coverage of the motorcycles of claimant and as well as appellants herein. Further, it is the admitted case of the appellants that appellant No.1 had sold his motorbike to appellant No.2. Though he had taken signatures on the documents for having sold the vehicle, he had failed to transfer the registration of the bike in the name of appellant No.2 and there is no insurance coverage to the said motorbike. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on appellant Nos.1 and 2. I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.