Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

Insurer of the offending motorcycle, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17th November, 2011 in MVC 568/2009 of the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Shivamogga, (for short 'MACT'), has presented this appeal.

2. Facts briefly stated are:

(i) First respondent instituted claim petition invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'Act') seeking Rs.13,15,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that allegedly occurred on 07.04.2009 while riding his TVS XL bearing certificate of registration KA-14/K-9726 from his house towards flour mill near petrol bunk, N.T. Road, whence, the 2nd respondent/Habibulla Khan, allegedly riding a Hero Honda Splendour motor cycle bearing certificate of registration KA-14 W-8664 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the side of Sandesh Motors dashed against TVS moped, by reason of which the 1st respondent fell off from the vehicle, sustained injuries and was admitted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga, where after wards, he was shifted to Nanjappa Hospital and from there to KMC Hospital, Manipal, where he was extended treatment for one month and on discharge, followed up treatment.

(ii) First respondent/claimant aged 50 on the date of accident claiming to be owner of a plastic industry earning Rs.25,000/- per month and due to permanent disability, allegedly lost his earning capacity and was unable to manage the industry. In addition, it was asserted that he was the only earning member in his family.

(iii) Respondent No.3 arraigned as 2nd respondent in the claim petition was said to be the owner of the offending motor cycle while appellant/insurer was arraigned as the 3rd respondent.

(iv) The rider and owner of the offending motor cycle, though served with notice in the claim petition, remained absent and were unrepresented, hence placed ex-parte, while appellant resisted the claim by filing statement of objections, inter alia, denying the accident, while admitted the issue of a policy of insurance, which was in force on the date and time of accident.

(v) In defence, it was stated that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the claimant, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and caused the accident.

(vi) It was alleged that owner/insured did not comply with Section 134(c) of the 'Act' and that 2nd respondent/insured in collusion with other respondents and police officials filed a false case by changing the name of the rider in active collusion with the rider/first respondent for wrongful gain.

(vii) It was further alleged that 2nd respondent/owner insured was the rider at the time of accident, without a valid driving licence a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

3. In the premise of pleadings of parties, MACT, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that on the relevant date, time and place the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KA-14AV-8664 by the 1st respondent?

(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that in the accident he sustained injuries?

(iii) Whether the 3rd respondent proves that on the date of accident driver was not having valid driving licence?

(iv) Whether 3rd respondent proves that accident was caused due to negligence of petitioner?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

(vi) What award or order?

4. The claimant/injured was examined as P.W. 1 and the Doctor as PW. 2 and 46 documents were introduced in evidence and marked as Exs. P. 1 to P.46 while for the appellant/insurer, its officer was examined as R.W. 1 and marked three documents as Exs. R. 1 to R. 3. The MACT returned the following findings.

Point No. 1: In the partly affirmative

Point No. 2: In the affirmative

Point No. 3: In the negative

Point No. 4: In the negative

Point No. 5: In the partly affirmative

Point No. 6: As per final order.

5.