SATHISHCHANDRA HEGDE Vs. H SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This Misceilaneous First Appeal is filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal in M. V. C. No. 980/94. The facts that lead to the filing of the appeal are as under:

(2.) M. V. C. No. 980/94 was filed by the L. Rs, of deceased - Jayarajclaiming compensation against the owner of the private bus bearing no. MEG 8010 and the Insurance Company. The date of accident is 4. 5. 1994. Admittedly, the claim petition came to be filed before the tribunal at Mangalore. Both respondents -1 and 2 were represented before the Mangalore Court. Subsequently, by order dated 22. 8. 1995 the matter was transferred to the Additional M. A. C. T. Udupi. Both the respondents were absent. Subsequently, except the second respondent the 1st respondent-owner did not file the written statement. Therefore, issues were framed on the basis of the written statement of the Insurer i. e. , respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal. Advocates represented both the petitioners and also the second respondent. The matter was disposed of by Judgment and award dated 20. 2. 1998. As the vehicle was not insured with the second respondent-Insurer though the petition was allowed, the liabiiity was fastened against the owner who did not participate in the proceedings except making his appearance by filing vakalath. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contends that he waskept totally in dark about the proceedings before the M. A. C. T. Udupi as neither the Court at Udupi sent him a fresh notice nor his advocate intimated him about the transfer of the case and its dismissal. He further contended that under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he could challenge the Judgment and Award by filing an appeal under Section 173 of the MVC Act. According to the appellant, if he had an opportunity to place before the Tribunal all the materials available, the award would not have been passed by the Tribunal. He also questions the quantum of compensation in this appeal. So far as the second respondent is concerned, he has nothing to say except reiterating his defence that the vehicle in question was not insured with them. So far as the 1st respondent is concerned according to him, the very appeal is not maintainable as far as this appeal is concerned as the Judgment and award passed by the tribunal would fall under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC and therefore he ought to have taken recourse under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.