LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-73

C N RAMACHANDRA SHETTY Vs. A L NARSINGA

Decided On July 08, 2019
C N Ramachandra Shetty Appellant
V/S
A Rs.Narsinga Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant as a plaintiff in O.S.No.10423/2006 filed against the present respondent in the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-14) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") had sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,04,500.00 together with costs and interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the defendant.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he was the registered owner of a Scooter bearing Registration No.MEN-8320 and had sold the said Scooter by delivering the possession of the said Scooter to the defendant on 02-04-1992, in which regard, the defendant had given him a delivery receipt acknowledging taking delivery of the Scooter. The plaintiff had also given Form No.29 and Form No.30 duly executed by him to enable the defendant to get the transfer of registration of the vehicle in his name. The Insurance certificate, tax card, registration certificate documents were all delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff at the time of delivering his Scooter. The said vehicle met with a road traffic accident near Vijayanagar, Bengaluru on 05-07-1994, wherein a pedestrian by name Smt. Rajamma, W/o. Mallaiah sustained injuries. She filed a claim petition before the learned XI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangaloru (SCCH-12) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'MACT') in M.V.C.No.3204/1994 against the plaintiff and one Sri.V. Jayaram, arraigning them as the owner and rider of the offending vehicle, i.e. Scooter, respectively.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement, wherein he categorically denied that he had purchased the Scooter from the plaintiff and got issued to him Form No.29 and Form No.30 duly executed by the plaintiff. He also denied that he had issued a delivery receipt to the plaintiff. He denied his alleged liability under the suit.