The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, as per Schedule II of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

The insurer-National Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27/2/2013 passed in MVC Nos.1328/2012 and 1330/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court II and Additional MACT, Belgaum, has filed these appeals.

2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 24/6/2011 both the deceased Amruth Arjun Nejkar and Chandrakanth Annasaheb Kuthe were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 22/W-6440 was ridden by the said deceased Amruth Arjun Nejkar and another was pillion rider. While they were proceedings at about 10.10p.m., infront of Ambabai Temple at Mudhal, a tata goods vehicle bearing No. MH-09/Q-6880 was abandoned on the middle of the road causing obstruction and danger without any stone guard and signallight. This being the fact, the rider of the said motorcycle Amruth Nejkar came in contact abruptly with the abandoned Tata goods vehicle. Both the rider and pillion rider sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot itself. The claimants in MVC No.1328/2012 are the LRs of Chandrakanth Kuthe and the claimants in MVC No.1330/2012 are the LRs of the deceased Amruth Nejkar, claimed compensation. The claimants further stated that the deceased Amrut Nejaker was aged about 31 years and was doing agriculture and earning Rs.40,000/- per year. The deceased was contributing his earning towards his family. The LRs of the deceased Chandrakanth Kuthe have stated that he was aged about 27 years and was doing agriculture and earning Rs.40,000/- per year and contributing his earning to his family. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants in both the cases have been put to hardship and lost their dependency.

3. Both the claim petitions were filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. In response to notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections separately. Subsequently, respondent No.3-owner of the motorcycle was also impleaded as respondent No.3. However, he remained absent inspite of notice served on him. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. They have also denied that the deceased were riding the motorcycle in a moderate speed and that the Tata good vehicle was parked on the middle of the road. They have denied that the accident happened solely due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the tata goods vehicle. Respondent No.1 has stated that the goods vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 on the date of alleged incident and thereby if there is any liability to pay compensation, it shall be saddled upon respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has denied the manner in which the accident occurred and he has contended that alleged incident happened solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the issues. Both the cases were heard together by recording the common evidence. The claimants got examined themselves as PW-1 & 2 and got marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to 23. Respondent No.2 examined one witness and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

6. The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,66,000/- in MVC No.1328/2012 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,66,000/- in MVC No.1330/2012 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization awarded.

7. The insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award, has filed this appeal, on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle is tortfeasor and his LRs are not entitled to maintain the claim pe