Judgment:
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and Award dated 09.07.2012 passed in MVC No.276/2010 on the file of the MACT-V, Chitradurga, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.)
1. Claimant in MVC No.276/2010 on the file MACT-V,Chitradurga, has come up in this appeal challenging the dismissal of his claim petition.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
Manjunath, claimant before the Tribunam said to be pillion rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-16/L-5600 was proceeding from Janukonda towards Chithradurga on N.H.13, on 16.01.2007. The rider of said motor cycle, viz., Sathish hit against a parked lorry and due to impact the rider died instantly. The appellant, who is pillion rider on the said Motor Cyle, suffered certain injuries. In that behalf, it is stated that he has taken treatment for 8 days in Government Hospital and thereafter he filed claim petition seeking compensation for the said injuries. It is seen that the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of the lorry, against which the driver of motor cycle went and hit.
3. Before the Tribunal, claim petitioners filed by the legal representatives of rider of motor cycle and as well as pillion rider were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. The Tribunal while considering the merit of both the cases has taken into consideration the place where the accident has taken place is 24 feet wide road with 6 feet kachcha road on either side. It is also observed that the lorry was parked on the extreme left side of the road with only its right side wheels on the tar road and rest of the vehicle on kachcha road. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has felt that there is error on the part of rider of the Motor Cycle in riding his bike without observing the traffic on the road. It is also observed that the complaint, which is filed at the earliest point of time, i.e., within two hours from the time of accident does not disclose the lorry being at fault for the accident. However, there appears to be improvement in the evidence that is adduced in the claim petitions so as to bring the claim within the purview of saddling the liability on the lorry, which was parked on the left side of the road at the relevant time. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the person, who has lodged the complaint and has given evidence as P.W.2, is deviated from the statement made by him before the police at the earliest point of time and has given a totally distorted version so as to bring the entire incident within the purview of saddling the liability on the lorry, which was parked on the left side of the road. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal neither believed the evidence of claimant nor the averments made in their claim petitions. It is further seen that in the case of present appellant, who is claimant in MVC No.276/2010, the best for him is to seek compensation from the owner of motor cycle, provided that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving from the rider of Motor Cycle. In the instant case, neither the owner/driver nor the insurer of the said Motor Cycle is made as party. There is also an error in arraying party to the petition filed by him.
4. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant herein, which cannot be found fault with. This court find that the appeal does not merit admission to re-consider the judgment impugned. Accordingly the same is dismissed.