H G RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. SRIKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal which arises from the judgment and award dated 26-10-1991, by Sri K. Ramannu (Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Bangalore City). in M.V.C. 1104 of 1986, has been preferred by the registered owner/owner of the Motor Vehicle (Scooter) bearing No. MEN 5654.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant- Master Srikantha, who is respondent No. 1, in the appeal, who was aged about 7 years and he was studying in II Standard at the relevant time, on 9-7-1986, at 12 noon, was walking from West to East on Subramanyanagar, Bangalore. At that time, the 2nd respondent in the appeal, namely Sri B. G. Rajagopal, who has been the Ist respondent in the claim petition was riding the Scooter bearing No. MEN 5654, came from the same direction in the rash and negligent manner with the high speed without blowing horn, and suddenly took the wrong turn and dashed with the petitioner from behind, consequently, the claimant - minor fell down and sustained grievous injuries on the vital part of his body. Before I mention further facts, I think it will be proper to mention that in some part of the judgement, the vehicle in question has been mentioned as MEM and somewhere, it has been described as MEN 5654. The Counsels for both the parties tell that the correct number in MEN 5654. The boy - claimant having fallen and having sustained grievous injuries was removed to K.C. General Hospital, Bangalore, where he was X-rayed for the wounds and X-ray revealed that the claimant suffered injuries of fracture of lower shaft of tibia as well. According to him, the claimant's father had incurred the expenditure of Rs. 2000/-on medical expenses. The claimant alleged that as a result of injuries, he cannot walk fast, sit or stand for long and in total he has been deprived of his normal activities in life on account of accident and he cannot attend his classes nor can he concentrate on his studies. According to the claimant, Criminal Case under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. was registered against the rider. The claimant made a claim against the rider, owner and the Insurer of the scooter in all for Rs. 77,000/- only and alleged that all of them are liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) The claim was contested by respondents 2 and 3, namely, the registered owner and the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 1- Rajagopal, driver of the vehicle scooter did not appear in person or through his counsel and therefore, the proceedings of the case did proceed ex parte against him.The registered owner in the case took the defence that he has sold the vehicle on 5-8-85, to one Venkatesh Murthy and the said Venkatesh Murthy was in actual possession of the vehicle. He alleged, that 'he' the respondent No. 2, was neither in control or ownership of the vehicle and so, he was not liable to pay any compensation and as such, the claim was liable to be dismissed against him. He denied the claimant's case that the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He denied that the claimant was entitled to any compensation.