HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3096 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Questioning his liability to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.591 of 198 vide judgment dated 22-07-2002 by the learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore, owner of the scooter preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant is owner of the unregistered scooter with Chasis No.06-C-BEDO-3775 Bajaj-Chetak that involved in the accident, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants and respondent No.5 is the driver, who drove the above scooter at the time of accident. 3. The case of the claimants, who are family members of the deceased Kasthuri Reddy, before the Tribunal is that on 19-09-1998 at about 6-00 AM, while the deceased was returning on a cycle after attending the work, at Veerareddy Satram on Kota-Vakadu road, Nellore District, an unregistered scooter belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by respondent No.2 with two pillion rider on it in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, lost control over the scooter and dashed against the deceased, on account of which deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Hence, claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. 4. Owner of the scooter and the driver who drove the scooter at the time of accident filed their counters separately denying the case of the claimants and that they are not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of scooter without registration number ( having Chasis No.06- C-BEDO-3775 Bajaj-Chetak) or due to the fault of the deceased himself, or if both are responsible what was the responsibility of each ? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ?” 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 7. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,63,100/- to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.2,75,000/-. Questioning the same, owner of the vehicle preferred this appeal. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, owner of the scooter, is that respondent No.5, driver of the scooter, has taken away his scooter without his knowledge and permission and caused accident, as such, he is not liable for payment of any compensation. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. Evidence of the appellant as RW.1 shows that he found his scooter missing and did not give any complaint and on the next day, respondent No.5 came with the scooter and informed him about the accident. It is very difficult to believe that when a brand new scooter, which was not even registered, was lost, appellant did not give any complaint about the same. It appears to be a case where the appellant has given his scooter to respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 caused the accident. The case of the appellant that he had no knowledge about the scooter being taken away by respondent No.5 cannot be believed. Even assuming that scooter was taken away by respondent No.5 without his knowledge, it is the duty of the appellant to keep it under proper lock to avoid misuse of the same. Thus, I see no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 23, 2010. NOTE: Furnish C.C. of the judgment within one week. (B/O) PV