These appeals arise against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Mysore in MVC No.1169/2010.

2. MFA No.3732/2014 is the claimants appeal and MFA No.5363/2014 is the appeal of the insurance company. In both these appeals, the 2nd respondent is the driver and the 3rd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the driver, the owner and the insurance company were arrayed as respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court

3. The claimant filed MVC No.1169/2010 before the Tribunal alleging that on 20.07.2005 at 3.00 PM when he was returning from Bangalore to Mysore in his Omni KA09/N836 after attending his business at Bangalore near Chatrada Doddi on Bangalore Mysore Road, the 1st respondent drove his sand loaded lorry No.KA05A459 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant’s vehicle and caused the accident. The claimant alleged that in the accident he suffered grievous injuries and his vehicle totally damaged. The claimant further contended that he was shifted to Ramnagara Government Hospital where he got preliminary treatment and then he was shifted to Manipal Hospital. He contended that he was treated as indoor patient for one month and suffered amputation of his right lower limb and other injuries causing 80% disability. He contended that since he lost his consciousness immediately after the accident and due to his long hospitalization he could not file the complaint but, in the meantime another person had filed a complaint against himself and after recovery, he filed PCR No.76/2005 wherein the 1st respondent was convicted. Thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,35,00,000/under different heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent nos.1 and 2 did not contest the matter. The 3rd respondent/ insurance company contested the petition denying the allegation of rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment taken by him, disability and the claim. The 3rd respondent further denied the policy coverage of the offending lorry and the 1st respondent possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Respondent no.3 contended that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the claimant himself and that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of the owner and insurance company of the Maruti Omni Van driven by the claimant.

5. The Tribunal framed the issues on all the rival contentions of the parties. Initially, the claim petition was filed before the I Addl. Sr. Civl Judge & MACT, Mysore and later it was transferred to the Court of the 2nd Addl.District Judge & MACT, Mysore. After appreciating the evidence recorded by it and hearing the parties, 2nd Addl. Dist Court and MACT by the judgment and award dated 28.08.2010, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and negatived the contention of the 3rd respondent regarding the breach of conditions of the insurance policy, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. Further, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition granting compensation of Rs.6,57,000/.

6. Against the said award, the claimant filed MFA No.9408/2010 for enhancement of the compensation and the insurance company filed MFA No.2142/2011 challenging its liability and the quantum. This Court by the order dated 7.8.2013 allowed both the appeals and remanded the matter to the Tribunal reserving liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence and directing the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

7. After remand, the Tribunal after affording opportunity to both the parties and hearing them, partly allowed