The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance company to pay the adjudged compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, based on legal principles from relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.07.2009, passed by the MACT, Bailhongal, in MVC No.2234/2007, questioning the correctness as to quantum of compensation.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :

It is contended that on 08.03.2007 at about 1.00 a.m. on Badami-Ramdurg road near Karadigudda cross, Badami Taluka, one Nagappa Iliger riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-24/H-8777 and the first respondent was the pillion rider and the said Nagappa encounter the wild pig across the road and as such, he lost the balance and fell down from the motorcycle resulting in serious injuries sustained by Nagappa Iliger. He was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment, but said Nagappa Iliger succumbed to the injuries. It is further contended that on account of wild pig crossing the road, the accident has taken place and sought for compensation by the dependents of Sri. Nagappa namely Smt. Renuka the wife and Ningawwa the mother have approached the tribunal seeking compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act.

3. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the court and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The first respondent-Insurance company admitted the accident, but denied the other allegations made in the claim petition.

4. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, first claimant got examined herself as PW1 and one witness got examined as PW2. The claimants also relied on the documentary evidence marked at Ex.P1 to P8. Among them Ex.P1 to 7 are the certified copies of FIR, complaint, spot panchanama and other relevant documents in respect of criminal case. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate of the deceased. On behalf of respondents, the first respondent got examined himself as RW1 and Ex.R1 Insurance policy came to be marked.

5. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.4,00,500/- as total compensation as under :

6. The tribunal also came to the conclusion that since it is the owner of the motorcycle himself is the tortfeasor and as such, the liability was fastened on the owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance company was absolved from the liability.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Hanumanth Latur vehemently contended that the tribunal has erred in law in not taking into consideration the evidential value of Ex.P8, especially his employer examined as PW2, therefore, sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

8. Further, it is contended that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in MFA No.30131/2010, the Insurance company be directed to pay the adjudged compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

9. The counsel for the first respondent Sri. H.M.Dharigond further submitted that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased and has granted exorbitant compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. The counsel for Insurance company, Sri. N.C. Kolloori vehemently contended that the quantum of compensation as adjudged by the tribunal itself is on the higher side.

11. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Hanumanth Latur contended that in fact the owner of the motorcycle had already approached this court in MFA No.21616/2012, dated 21.11.2012 and said appeal came to be dismissed for non compliance of non depositing the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- and as such, he has no locus-standi to question the quantum of compensation.

12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company relied