MAHABALA Vs. SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was claimant before Additional M. A. C. T. at Sagar in M. V. C. No. 76 of 1995, has approached this court since his claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,60,000 from the respondents came to be dismissed on 27. 4. 2001.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that claimant failed to prove that there was an accident to him by motor cycle and also in not awarding compensation to him besides holding that the insurance company has proved that it is not liable to pay compensation after holding that the rider had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. On the other hand, it is submitted for the insurance company that the finding on negligence is proper and correct and that the policy of insurance ceased to be effective as the transfer of the vehicle by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 was not informed and, at any rate, as respondent No. 1 had no valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal has rightly not fastened liability with it (insurance company ). Perused the records carefully.

(3.) IN brief, the case of claimant is that, on 26. 4. 1991, when he was proceeding on the left side on Avenahalli-Heggodu Road, the respondent No. 1 came on motor cycle bearing No. MEG 8872 driving it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him causing serious injuries and hence, he is entitled to compensation as claimed. The respondent No. 1 remained absent in spite of service of notice and did not contest the claim. However, the respondent No. 2 filed his objections stating that since he had transferred the vehicle in question on 20. 3. 1991 itself to the respondent No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 6,000 and parted with its possession then only, he is in no way liable to answer the claim and as such, the claim is not maintainable against him. So also, respondent No. 3 insurance company, with which the said vehicle was insured, disputed its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid or effective driving licence to drive it. After inquiry, the Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove the accident and respondent No. 2 is not liable to answer the claim because of transfer of vehicle to the respondent No. 1 and so also the insurance company as the respondent No. 1 had no valid or effective driving licence to drive the motor cycle and dismissed the claim petition. So, in this appeal of the appellant-claimant, following points arise for consideration: