LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-46

M.R.GANGADHAR Vs. G.MALLIKA

Decided On December 09, 2020
M.R.Gangadhar Appellant
V/S
G.Mallika Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.07.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.1387/2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V and MACT, Mysore ('the Tribunal' for short), fastening the liability on the appellant/insured.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Murthy. The deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and he was doing welding work and thereby earning Rs.250/- per day. Out of his income, he was maintaining the family. That on 10.08.2006 at about 8.45 p.m., on B.M.Sree Main Road near Nandini Milk Centre, Mysore City, the deceased Ganesh Murthy was crossing the road. At that time, a Kinetic Honda motor bike rider came in a rash and negligent manner in the extreme right side of the road and hit the said Ganeshh Murthy. As a result, the said Ganesh Murthy sustained injuries and he was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysore and thereafter to JSS Hospital, Mysore, wherein he was treated from 10.08.2006 to 17.08.2006. Unfortunately, on 17.08.2006 he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Murthy.

(3.) In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was issued against respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.1 was placed exparte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were represented though their counsel and filed the objection statement. Respondent No.2 - owner of the vehicle, in his written statement, took the defence that the vehicle was sold and possession was delivered to respondent No.1 on 09.08.2006 itself after obtaining the delivery note duly signed by respondent No.1. It is also contended that intimation of transfer of the vehicle to respondent No.1 was given to the RTO on the very same day. Hence, as on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of the offending vehicle and it was not at all in his possession and there was a valid insurance to the offending vehicle and hence claimed that the petition has to be dismissed against him.