JUDGMENT :

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 30.11.2012 at about 5.13 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HK-7614, when he was trying to take a right turn to move towards Prashanth Layout, ITPL Main Road, Bangalore City very carefully, cautiously and observing traffic rules, at that time, all of a sudden, a Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, driven by its driver at high speed, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and he fell down and wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained severe grievous injuries all over the body and died at the spot.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was employed as an Asst. System Engineer at TCS, Whitefield and was earning Rs.28,000/-per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The respondent No.1, insurance company has pleaded that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on fact. It has further pleaded that the Trailer Lorry bearing registration No.AP16/TX-3349, was covered by “Commercial Vehicle Package” Policy No.62082231110100010095 valid from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013. It has further pleaded that the liability of the Insurance Company, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has further pleaded that the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP16/TX-3349 was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. It has further pleaded that at the time of accident, the owner of the lorry had no valid certificate of fitness and permit. It has further pleaded that the accident occurred on account of actionable negligence of two drivers namely, driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA03/HK-7614 ridden by the deceased and driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP16/TX-3349. As such, both the vehicles involved in the accident must be held to be guilty of composite negligence. The owner and insurer of the other vehicle i.e., motorcycle are not impleaded, hence, the present case is not maintainable. It has further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, illegal and fanciful. Hence, respondent No.1Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the claim petition.

The respondent No.2-owner of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-16/TX3349, has pleaded that he was having valid permit and driver of the lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and the vehicle is insured with the 1st respondent and the policy was in force at the time of alleged accident. It has further pleaded that claim of the claimants is false and highly excessive. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the claim petition against respondent No.2.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PWs1 and 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. On behalf of respondents, five witnesses were examined as RWs1 to 5 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R44. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP-16/TX-3349 by its driver, as a result of whic