- (1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
(2.) THE appellant herein has challenged the award dated 25.08.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 52 of 1988 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 33800/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum. THE Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the original opponent no. 2-owner of the vehicle and original opponent no. 3- insurer of the vehicle. It is the case of the appellant that on 17.07.1987 while the appellant was going on his motor cycle bearing registration no. GRE 6663, an autorickshaw being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant as a result of which the appellant lost balance and fell on the ground and sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition against the original opponents no. 2 & 3.
(3.) AS a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has observed that the autorickshaw was already transferred to one Rajendrakumar for consideration on 01.06.1987 and the possession was already delivered thereof. It is borne out from the records that vehicle in question was sold on 01.04.1986 and the writing was executed on 30.05.1986. Therefore as on 01.06.1987, the original opponent no. 2 was not the owner of the rickshaw. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that on the ddate of accident the original opponent no. 2 was not the owner and therefore he was not liable to pay compensation and the insurance company shall also not be liable to pay compensation thereof. 5.1 The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 33,800/-. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.;