C R SATHISHA Vs. MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from the judgment and award dated 19-7-1991 given by the District Judge and Member of the Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sri Mohamed Anwar), Chikmagalur, in M.V.C. Case No. 122/1989, dismissing the claim petition of the present appellant, on the ground that the claim petition at the instance of the claimant-petitioner, that is present appellant was not maintainable as the autorickshaw which had been damaged in the accident was not registered in the name of the claimant and claimant had no registration, certificate in his favour irrespective of the fact that the evidence furnished in the case undisputedly exhibited that the autorickshaw was purchased by the claimant for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that on 7th February, 1989, at about 6.45 p.m., autorickshaw bearing No. MEC 4154, driven by one Arun Kumar, met the accident near Shankar Saw Mill on Chikamagalur to Kadur. Road, in the Chikmagalur City. The occurrence had taken place on account of the fact that the lorry bearing Registration No. MEC 4116 belonging to respondent No. 1, was coming from the opposite direction being driver in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, and dashed against the autorickshaw damaging the autorickshaw of the present claimant- appellant on one hand as well as resulting in the death of the driver of that autorickshaw. The two claim petitions were filed, one by the parents of Arun Kumar, the deceased, which is claim petition No. MVC 116 of 89 and the other claim petition No. MVC 122 of 1989 was filed by the present appellant, who claimed himself to be the owner of the autorickshaw which has been damaged in the said accident. The claimant made a claim of damage to the tune of Rs.25,000/- against respondents. 1 to 3, the claimant-appellant's case has been that the truck was being driven in a negligent and rash manner and that is why, the occurrence did take place and excessive damage was caused to the autorickshaw belonging to the claimant-appellant.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte and do not appear to have preferred any objections or to have filed any written statement. The insurance company, who is respondent No. 3, contested the claim of the claimant-appellant and filed the written objections.