The Court emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate fraud allegations and re-assessed disability based on medical reports. The Court also considered the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - These two appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.04.2012 passed in MVC No.660/2011 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH.18) (for short 'the Tribunal'), by the Insurance Company in MFA No.6845/2012 questioning the fastening of liability and quantum and the claimant in MFA No.8348/2012 questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal as claimant and respondent-Insurance Company.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 5.10.2010 at about 6.20 p.m. on Bengaluru Mysuru Road, near Reshme Goodu Hump, Ramanagar, the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EZ- 2311 and the same was ridden by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and ran over the hump, as a result of which, the claimant knock down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries to his head, right ear, nose and other parts of the body. The claimant was shifted to BGS Global Hospital immediately after the accident for treatment. He was inpatient from 05.10.2010 to 23.11.2010 and also undergone several operations for the injury. The claimant was in ICU for a period of one month. He also took regular follow up treatment after discharging from the hospital. The claimant further readmitted several times to the hospital and subjected for surgeries, for which, he spent huge amount towards treatment, medicine, food, conveyance and other charges. He also lost an academic year on account of accidental injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation.

4. In pursuance of the said claim petition, notices were ordered against respondents and respondent No.1 Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement, wherein it has taken up a defence that the claimant was a pillion-rider and hence, he has not been covered under the policy. The liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contended that as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy has been violated, the liability cannot be saddled against the Insurance Company. It is further contended that there is a delay of 30 days in lodging a complaint, which has not been properly explained by the claimant. The Insurance Company also denied the age, income and occupation of the injured, nature of injuries sustained by him, nature and period of treatment undergone by him and the amount spent for such treatment and so also the other incidental expenses.

5. The respondent No.2 Owner did not choose to appear before the Tribunal though served with notice and contest the matter and hence, he placed ex-parte.

6. The claimant, in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW.1, the doctor as PW.2 and another witness as PW.3 and also got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P29.

7. The respondent Insurance Company also examined one witness, who is a Medical Records Manager from BGS Global Hospital as RW.1 and got marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of a sum of Rs.14,26,300/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company in MFA No.6845/2012 would contend that the Tribunal ought to have seen the claim petition being bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties as the alleged rider of the motor cycle on which the injured/claimant claimed to be a pillion-rider at the time of the alleged accident on a road hump when breaks were applied. The Tribunal ought to have seen that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act or Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. The main conten