Karnataka High Court
Sri H P Palani vs Sri M M Bopanna on 30 August, 2011
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
a ss a IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE SO™ DAY OF AUGUST 2011- . BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.540/201i.. BETWEEN: ans | lL. Sri. H.P. Palani S/o Ponnuswamy Aged about 55 years 2. Sit. Maltlige W/o Sri, H.P.Paiani Aged about 48 years ~ Both are R/o: Moga rally 0) . Virajapet, South Kodagu. 9. .. APPELLANTS (By Sri. MR. Balakrilysna. Adv.) : -- AND: Sri. MM. Bopanna 5/0 MLK. Muthanna R/o Kukloor Village "Viretpet;South Kodagu. ed 2. The Manager _ Oriental Insurance Co. Lid., ~ New Delhi-2. Represented by its Branch Officer Orierital Insurance Co. Ltd., 'Badshah Building Virajapet, South Kodagu ~ S71 218. . RESPONDENTS (By Sri.M.S.Sriram, Adv for R-2 OR} £ is served) This MPLA. is Wlecd under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2010 passed in MVC No. 1145/2009 on the dle of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.} and. MAC Tv Virajpet, dismissing the petition for compensation. This Appeal coming on for hearing this day. the' Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
Appeal by the claimants against the judgment and -award in MLV C No. 148/2009 dated ¢ 30. 9. 2010 on the' ofl le ol Me AC. Virajpet.
. The Tribunal has rejec ted the clitin, pe tition fied under section 16G-A of the Motor Vehicles Ket. holding that the claimant -- der oh the miotor, eycle caused the accident. he himself beng a" 'Ort Sor, He is novecntitled for compensation.
3. tis hot the case of ihe claimant that he is an employee working under the owner of the motor cycle and he was engaged IP. riding'the motor eycle in connection with the employment, if he fad tamer: the motor cycle from the owner, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and once he is the owner of the vehicle. So. he canriot inake a claim petition to claim compensation against "himself. [is in these circurmstances, even the Apex Court in the judgment reported ip 2009 ACJ 2020 in the matter of
- Ningamma and another -vs- United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Lad has held that the claimant - rider of the motor cycle, who had borrowed the same irom the owner, will step into the shoes Gr the owner and cannot maintain a claim petition and as sac this claim petition has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. ~ KNM/-