JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant assailing the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Asst. Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, in MVC No. 711/2008 dated 24.05.2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case as averred in the claim petition are that on 17.01.2008 at about 12.00 p.m., the petitioner, Smt. Shantawwa, was proceeding by the side of Bailhongal Yaragatti road and when she came near I.B. Murgod village, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 22/H9960 came rashly and negligently and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was taken to PHC Murgod and thereafter she was shifted to Dr. Hanamantgad hospital, Bailhongal and got treated there by Dr. C.D. Kulakarni for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. A criminal case was also registered in Crime No.17/2008. For having suffered the injuries and permanent disability, she filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation.

5. In response to the notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statement. Respondent No.2 has denied the contents of the claim petition and further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and has violated the driver clause of the policy and as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 17/1/2008 at about 12.00 hours on Bailhongal Yaragatti road, near Murgod I.B. at Murgod village, within the limits of Murgod Police Station, in view of negligent use of a Bajaj Vehicle No.KA-22/H-9960 an accident took place resulting in the injuries to petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for compensation? If so, at what extent and from whom?

3. What order?

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she got examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P29. On behalf of the respondent No.2, he got examined R.W.1 and got marked a document as per Ex.R.1.

8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal. For having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is before this Court.

9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant are that though the doctor, who came to be examined as P.W.2, has deposed that the claimant suffered 30% disability to the left lower limb and she got difficulties in squatting, sitting cross leg and standing for longtime, the Tribunal by taking the disability to the extent of 8% has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. He further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was holding valid and effective Learner’s Licence and if a person who is holding licence is considered to be a duly licensed person to drive the vehicle and then under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent No.2insurer instead of respondent No.1owner. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Renuka W/o. Laxman Katnalli v. Rajashekhar S/o. Yacharappa Kurabar in MFA No.25279/2011 dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and prayed for fastening the liability on the respondent No.2 insurer. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehi