The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company as the insurer of the lorry to pay compensation due to the negligence of the lorry driver.

Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 21-01-2012, passed by the Fast Track Court-I and Addl. MACT, Mysore, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted the claimants, in Appeal No. 2771/12, a compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- along with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, and has further granted the same amount to the claimants in Appeal No. 2772/12. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common order.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17-12-2010, at about 7 p.m., Ravi, the husband of claimant-respondent in Appeal No. 2771/12 and Narayan, the husband of claimant-respondent in Appeal No. 2772/12, were going on a motorbike, bearing Reg. No. KA-45/H-6160 towards the village Doddakatoor from Mysore. While Ravi was riding the motorbike, Narayan was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Chitravana Resort, a lorry, bearing Reg. No. KA-08/3715, was proceeding in front of them. Ravi tried to overtake the said lorry, but seeing another vehicle coming from the opposite direction, he slowed down his motorbike and tried to turn towards the left side. However, without giving any signal, the driver of the lorry suddenly stopped the lorry. Therefore, the motorbike dashed against the rear of the lorry. Due to the impact, both Ravi and Narayan died on the spot. Since Ravi and Narayan were followed by one Mr. Puttaraju, (P.W.3), who is also from the same village, immediately Mr. Puttaraju filed a complaint before the concerned jurisdictional police. Since the claimants-respondents lost the bread earners of their respective families, two separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal, namely MVC No. 18/11 and MVC No. 20/11. In order to buttress their case, the claimants-respondents examined three witnesses, and submitted thirteen documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, and submitted two documents. After assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence these two appeals filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Since the claimants were also aggrieved by the award dated 21-01-2012, they too had filed two appeals before this Court, namely MFA No.10771/12 and MFA No.10772/12. Both these appeals were decided by this Court by order dated 14-08-2013, whereby this Court had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. Since the Insurance Company was aggrieved by the order dated 14-08-2013, it has filed two review petitions before this Court, namely R.P.No.222/17 and R.P.No.223/17. However, by order dated 15-09-2017, this Court has dismissed the review petitions, both on merit and on the ground of being hit by limitation.

4. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has strenuously pleaded that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the accident was not caused so much due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, as it was caused due to Ravi’s negligence. Ravi’s negligence is apparent by the fact that he was driving the motorbike in such a high speed that he could not even apply the brakes and prevent the accident from occurring. Moreover, he did not maintain a safe distance between himself and the lorry. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on the evidence of Mr. Puttaraju (P.W.3). According to the learned counsel, Mr. Puttaraju (P.W.3) is not a trustworthy witness. Despite the fact that he was the complainant who had lodged the FIR, he has changed his version in his testimony, from the version given by him in the complaint. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on an untrustworthy witness. Thirdly, since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Mr. Ravi, the Insurance Company, the insurer of the lorry, cannot be saddled with the liability of having to pa