ANNAPPA SWAMY Vs. SHIVAMURTHY; MANAGER; CHANNAKESHAVA; KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.No.6637/2013, is also the appellant in MFA No.466/2013. In both the proceedings viz., the writ petition and the appeal, the petitioner who is the first respondent before the MACT in MVC Nos.577/2011 and 578/2011, is before this Court assailing the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed therein in respect of the accident which occurred on 06.09.2010 involving two vehicles bearing No. KA 04 EK 1061 and KA 44 A 2192.

(2.) The petitioner/appellant is the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA 04 EK 1061. However, he claims that he is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. When the claim petition was filed by the respective claimants in MVC Nos.577/2011 and 578/2011, the owner of the said motor cycle one Sri Channakeshava was not arrayed as one of the respondents to the claim petitions. However, the petitioner/appellant herein though was not the owner of the vehicle had been arrayed as respondent No.1 as if he is the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle as respondent No.2. The Tribunal after having proceeded on that basis has awarded the compensation of Rs.8,000/- in MVC No.577/2011 and Rs.24,000/- in MVC No.578/2011. The liability to pay the compensation has been fixed on the first respondent before the Tribunal viz., the petitioner/appellant herein. Therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment and the award passed in MVC No.577/2013, W.P.No.6637/2013 is filed. The appeal in MFA No.466/2013 is filed against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.578/2011.

(3.) Since common questions with regard to maintainability of the claim in the absence of the owner of the vehicle arise in both the proceedings and since the liability arising out of the same accident is fastened on the petitioner/appellant, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.