B. Manohar, J.

The National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 24-12-2010 made in MVC No.1 135/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal for short).

2. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that on 19-08-2007, at about 11.00 a.m., after performing pooja at Om Shakthi temple, while he was returning to his house, a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-14/S-9177 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Due to that, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he had taken treatment in Meena Nursing Home at Bhadravathi. He claims that he had spent huge money for his treatment. Due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, the accident occurred and sought for compensation of Rs.22,90,000/-.

3. The insurance company defended the case by filing written statement and contended that the insured motor cycle was not involved in the accident. The complaint has been lodged one month after the accident. No material has been produced to show that in the road traffic accident occurred on 19-08-2007, the claimant has sustained injuries and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

5. The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.PI 1 Ex.P9. On behalf of the respondents, two of the officers of the insurance company were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration IM V report, wound certificate, Panchanama, copy of the complaint and FIR held that due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by the second respondent, the accident occurred and the claimant is entitled for compensation. Though the insurance company had taken a contention that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the same has been falsely implicated in the accident, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, for the injuries he has sustained in the accident he had spent huge money for his treatment. In support of which, he had also produced medical bills. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, comforts and happiness. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45.000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the offending motorcycle was covered by the insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

7. Heard Sri. E. R. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were served with notice, they remained unrepresented. Perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.

8. The records produced by the parties clearly disclose that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 19-08-2007. Immediately after the accident, the claimant had taken treatment in Meena Hospital. The Hospital records clearly disclose that he has sustained abrasion over the left knee, pain, loss of mobility and deformity to left clavicle. The doctor who treated the claimant has assessed injury No. 1 as grievous in nature. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 37 years. Though the appellant had taken a contention that the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated in the