JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2010 in MVOP No. 289 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the National Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager, who is 2nd respondent in MVOP preferred this appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The claimant had filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.12.2007 at 05.00 PM.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 18.12.2007 at 5.00 PM, he was proceeding on his motorcycle to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. When he reached the vicinity of the provident fund office at Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa, the oil tanker of the 1st respondent bearing No. AP-03-U-2169 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) was driven from the opposite direction by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to this, he sustained a compound fracture of the left leg below the knee with the crushing of the entire area. Immediately, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there to Kadapa Poly Clinic and Vijaya Health Care Hospital, Chennai. Several surgeries were performed on his left leg. Iron rods and screws were inserted into the injured left leg of the claimant.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement and submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant. The 2nd respondent accorded permission under Section 170(b) of the MV Act to take up all defences.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.26 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW-1 got examined and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and granted compensation of Rs. 9,24,000/- under various heads together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent preferred the appeal.

9. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company has contended that as per F.I.R. while the claimant was going on his motorcycle and when he reached P.F. office, one auto came in his opposite direction with high speed and with an intent to avert the same, he turned his motorcycle to right side and fell down, in the meanwhile the offending vehicle dashed against him, resulting the claimant sustained injuries and the claimant failed to implead the owner and driver of the auto as parties to the O.P. the Tribunal was unable to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and he has no driving licence to drive the two wheeler and it was admitted by him in his cross examination; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant failed to establish his avocation, in the absence of it, awarded Rs. 1,19,000/- towards loss of income by assessing the disability cannot be sustained; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the offending vehicle’s owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy and ought not to have fixed the liability against the appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

12. Now the points for determination are:

(I) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver?

(II) Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribun