The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of contributory negligence and the assessment of compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - M.F.A.No.5118/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas M.F.A.No.939/2017 has been filed by the Corporation against the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short). Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that deceased Narayan Swamy on 29.04.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA08-K-3948 and was traveling on Kolar Bangarpet Main Road. When he reached Aniganhalli Gate, suddenly driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA07-F-1586 came from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, deceased Narayan swamy and pillion rider sustained severe injuries and deceased succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased was working as Cook and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years and the accident took place on account of sole negligence on the part of the offending bus. The claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. It was also pleaded that the deceased was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and dashed against the bus on the left side. It was further pleaded that the accident has taken place solely on account of negligence on the part of the deceased and the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and is excessive.

4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues. The claimants in order to prove their case examined claimant No.1 Chalapathy as PW1 and got exhibited documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondent got examined one J.M.Nagaraj as RW1 and did not file any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 25.10.2016 inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. It was further held that the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeal shave been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the driver of the motor cycle came beyond the median line of the road and dashed the right side of the bus. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged by the father who was not an eye witness to the accident. It is further submitted that the claimants have not adduced any evidence with regard to manner of accident, whereas, the Corporation had examined the driver of the bus as RW1 who has stated the manner in which the accident has taken place. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence of the bus is contrary to the evidence on record. It is also submitted that no evidence was adduced with regard to income of the deceased and therefore, his income has to be assessed on notional basis and the Tribunal grossly erred in adding a sum of 50% on account of future prospects. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has invited the attention of this court to the sketch and IMV report and the findings recorded by the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has recorded the finding with regard to negligence of the driver of the bus. It is further pleaded that the Tribunal grossly erred in treating the