B. Manohar, J.

1. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 13-07-2010 made in MVC No. 4657/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) and also fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to compensate the claimant, has filed this appeal.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 22-02-2009 at about 9.45 p.m., he was proceeding in a auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-09/A-2318 as a passenger from Mysuru Railway Station to the Sub-Urban Bus-stop. When the auto reached near JK Ground traffic signal junction, driver of another auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-10/6099 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the right side of the road and dashed against the auto rickshaw in which the claimant was traveling. Due to that, the auto rickshaw turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Krishnarajendra Hospital at Mysore wherein he had taken first-aid treatment, thereafter he was shifted to Prestine Hospital at Bangalore wherein he had taken treatment as inpatient from 27-02-2009 to 02-03-2009 for the fracture of both the bones of left forearm. He has undergone surgery on 27-02-2009 and internal fixation has been made by using plates. He claimed that he has spent huge money for his treatment. He was working as a Data Entry Operator and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries sustained and permanent disability he has suffered, he cannot use the left hand. Due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending auto rickshaw which was insured with the 3rd respondent, the accident had occurred and hence, both the owner as well as the insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate the claimant in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the first respondent-owner of the offending auto rickshaw entered appearance through his advocate, he has not filed any written statement and participated in the trial. The 2nd respondent-owner of the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-09/A-2318 filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-10/6099, the accident occurred, the claimant who was traveling as a passenger in the auto rickshaw sustained injuries and their auto rickshaw has been badly damaged. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of his auto rickshaw. However, due to negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him.

4. The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed the written statement admitting that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the offending auto rickshaw. However, the insurance policy is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The first respondent has not submitted any documents pertaining to the insured vehicle and also driving license of the auto driver for verification, in spite of the notice issued to him. Further the police have charge sheeted the driver of the offending auto rickshaw for not holding driving license under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the vehicle entrusted the auto rickshaw to the person not holding valid driving license hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. Further there is head-on collision between two auto rickshaw. Both the drivers of the auto rickshaw have contributed for the accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the insurance company.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

6. The claimant, in order to prove his case examined hi