RAMAIAH SETTY Vs. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two appeals are by Sri ramaiah setty. The appellant before us was respondent No. 1 in motor vehicle case nos. 1716, 1717 and 1718/87 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, No. Viii, Bangalore city.

(2.) the claimants had alleged that on 18-11-1987 at about 9-40 p.m. on p.s. lane road, Bangalore, when the petitioner in mvc. 1716/87 was proceeding on his scooter, bearing registration mark mev 6054 along with his wife and daughter (who were the petitioners in the other two connected petitions), a motor vehicle bearing registration mark cai. 6799 was driven at a high speed on p.s. lane from the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter of the petitioner. Due to the impact the petitioner, his wife and daughter sustained injuries and the scooter was heavily damaged. After the accident the claimants were taken to victoria hospital where they were treated. The petitioners had alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing registration mark cai. 6799 by the second respondent, namely, madhu, the accident occurred and therefore respondents 1 and 2 wete liable to pay the damages to them by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by them. They claimed in the first petition Rs. 22,500/-, in the second petition Rs. 20,500/- and in the third petition Rs. 35,000/-. The claim petition came to be allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,600/-in the first petition, Rs. 2,500/- in the second petition and Rs. 3.000/- in the third petition came to be allowed by the accident claims tribunal. Aggrieved by the same the first respondent has preferred these appeals against the order in so far as they relate to motor vehicle case nos. 1717 and 1718 of 1987 interalia on the ground that he was not the owner of the vehicle but he had sold the same to one ramachandra naidu, on 27-9-1985 well before the accident which took place on 18-11-87, who inturn had sold it to one muniraju subsequent to the accident and therefore he was not liable to be saddled with the liability arising out of the accident. In other words the defence put forward was that two years prior to the date of accident the vehicle had been sold to the said ramachandra naidu and liability if any, arising out of the negligent driving by the second respondent of the scooter bearing registration mark cai. 6799 would be on ramachandra naidu and he was not the person to be saddled with liability.

(3.) in that behalf he had producedcertain documents. They have been rejected on the ground that the transfer was not duly entered in accordance with the requirement of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He also produced a demand made by the regional transport officer. Rajajinagar, Bangalore, calling upon him to pay arrears of tax in the sum of Rs. 863-60 ps.