1. Both these Miscellaneous First Appeals have arisen from the same impugned Judgment and Award dated 15.4.2006 passed in MVC No.840/2004 by the learned Judge, Small Causes (SCCH-3) and Member, MACT, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’ for short).

2. MFA No.11311/2006 is filed by the insurer of the lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-01-AB-7099, which was involved in the accident that occurred on 17.10.2003 at 8.30 a.m. on Sarjapur Main Road, Sulikunte, Bangalore, wherein the 1st respondent in this appeal (claimant) sustained bodily injuries. The insurer has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned Judgment as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry and also as to the liability of the appellant-insurer to pay to the claimant the amount of compensation awarded in his favour. However, the appellant-insurer has not disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and Award in favour of the injured claimant.

3. The claimant has filed MFA No.11843/2006 seeking enhancement in the compensation on the ground that the amounts awarded under various heads are inadequate and hence they require to be enhanced.

4. I have heard Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for the insurer (appellant in MFA No.11311/2006) and Sri Shripad V Shastri, learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in MFA No.11843/2006) and perused the entire material found in the original records obtained from the Claims Tribunal.

5. The facts that the motor vehicle accident occurred on the said date, time and place as a result of which, the injured claimant, who was moving on his bicycle at the said place, sustained bodily injuries, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said lorry was validly insured with the Insurance Co. which is appellant in MFA No.11311/2006 and respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal.

6. The main contentions of Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. are:

(i) The Claims Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the said accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver and therefore the said finding deserves to be interfered with by this Court.

(ii) The Claims Tribunal has not properly considered the recitals in the scene of offence panchanama and also the details shown in the sketch of the scene of offence while recording its finding that the driver of the said lorry was solely negligent in driving the same.

(iii) The Claims Tribunal ought to have held that the injured claimant, who was riding his bicycle, also contributed to the occurrence of the said accident by negligently riding his bicycle.

(iv) The 1st respondent before the Claims Tribunal viz. S Dhanapala, being the owner of the said lorry committed breach of condition of insurance policy by not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) inasmuch as, the driver of the said vehicle drove it without possessing, as on the relevant date of accident, a valid and effective license to drive the same.

(v) The driver of the said lorry violated the provisions of Section 134(c) of the Act by not informing the insurer the factum of occurrence of the accident and therefore the owner of the said lorry ought to have been held to have committed breach of insurance policy.

(vi) The driver of the said vehicle did not comply with the provision of Section 158(6) of the Act and therefore, it is to be held that the owner of the said vehicle violated the mandatory provision of the Act and hence the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner by paying the said amount of compensation to the claimant.

(vii) The driver of the said lorry did not possess valid and effective license to drive the same as on the relevant date of accident and therefore the owner thereof committed breach of condition of in