The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for loss of consortium and the requirement for evidence to support attributions of contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT

M Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though l isted for admission, is taken up for f inal disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been f i led by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.03.2012 passed by the Prl. Senior Civi l Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MVC.No.1080/2010.

3. Parties wi l l be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

4. Facts giving rise to the f i ling of the appeal brief ly stated are that on 05.04.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased was travel ing as a pi l lion rider on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.23/X-4271 and was proceeding from Dhupdal-Ghataprabha road at which time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negl igent manner which caused the motorcycle to turn upside down, resulted in fal l of the deceased. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased who was a pi l l ion rider sustained fatal injuries and he was immediately admitted to the Government Hospital Dhupadal and was later shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum where the deceased succumbed to the injuries whi le under treatment at KLE Hospital, Belgaum on 09.04.2010.

5. The claimants fi led a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.1080/2010 on the ground that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was employed as Lathe Operator under Rajeshwari Firms, Implements and Equipments, Raibag District Belagavi and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest.

6. Upon service of notice, the 1s t respondent owner of the motorcycle admitted the accident and denied the rest of the averments and contended that motorcycle was insured with the 2nd respondent and he had val id and effective driving l icence as on the date of the accident. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company appeared and f i led its statement of objections wherein it denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the manner in which the accident had occurred. It was also denied that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The respondent-Insurance Company further contended that the 1st respondent rider of the motorcycle did not have val id and effective driving l icence and also pleaded that both the rider and pi l l ion rider of the motorcycle namely deceased were intoxicated with consumption of alcohol.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

8. The claimants, in order to prove their case examined two witnesses. The 1st claimant namely wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got exhibited 12 documents namely Exs.P1 to P.12. On the other hand respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R3.

9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negl igent riding of the rider of the motorcycle namely, the 1s t respondent, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,73,663/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, attributing contributory negl igence on the part of the deceased to the tune of 10% as he was cl inging on the rider of the motorcycle who was intoxicated. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and 10% of contributory negl igence attributed to the deceased, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and chal lenging that portion of the order that attributes 10% contributory negl igence to the deceased.

10. I have heard Sri Vittha