G. MANJUNATH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in MVC No. 276/2010 on the file of MACT-V, Chitradurga, has come up in this appeal challenging the dismissal of his Claim Petition, Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(2.) Before the Tribunal, claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of rider of Motor Cycle and as well as pillion rider were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. The Tribunal while considering the merit of both the cases has taken into consideration the place where the accident has taken place is 24 feet wide road with 6 feet kachcha road on either side. It is also observed that the lorry was parked on the extreme left side of the road with only its right side wheels on the tar road and rest of the vehicle on kachcha road. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has felt that there is error on the part of rider of the Motor Cycle in riding his bike without observing the traffic on the road. It is also observed that the complaint, which is filed at the earliest point of time, i.e., within two hours from the time of accident does not disclose the lorry being at fault for the accident. However, there appears to be improvement in the evidence that is adduced in the Claim Petitions so as to bring the claim within the purview of saddling the liability on the lorry, which was parked on the left side of the road at the relevant time. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the person, who has lodged the complaint and has given evidence as P.W. 2, is deviated from the statement made by him before the police at the earliest point of time and has given a totally distorted version so as to bring the entire incident within the purview of saddling the liability on the lorry, which was parked on the left side of the road. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal neither believed the evidence of claimant nor the averments made in their Claim Petitions. It is further seen that in the case of present appellant, who is claimant in MVC No. 276/2010, the best bet for him is to seek compensation from the owner of Motor Cycle, provided that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving from the rider of Motor Cycle. In the instant case, neither the owner/driver nor the insurer of the said Motor Cycle is made as party. There is also an error in arraying necessary party to the petition filed by him.