JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2011 passed in MVC No.906/2010 filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal is that on 11.03.2009 at about 2.45 PM deceased Dundappa was going on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/J-6799 along with Shekhar Allappagouda Baadar as a pillion rider, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle slowly and cautiously and when they came about 200 meters from the Nandi Sugar Factory another motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/J-7257 came from opposite direction i.e. from Kanabur side in very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to this impact, both have sustained injuries and both were shifted in BLDE Hospital Bijapur and thereafter he was shifted to Dhanwantari Hospital Bijapur. In spite of taking treatment, the claimant suffered permanent disability which has affected his earning capacity. Hence, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking for compensation in view of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

3. Notice was issued to the respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and also denied the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment taken by the injured sustained. It is contended that the driver of the motor bike in question was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident as such the said respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant in the claim petition.

4. The tribunal on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues:

(1) Does petitioners prove that accident is due to rash and negligence driving of the motorbike bearing No.KA-29/K-7257 by its rider and in this accident Dundappa Channal died and petitioner Shekhar of MVC-906/2010 sustained injuries?

(2) Does respondent-2 prove that the rider of the motorbike KA-29/K-7257 had no driving licence to drive the motorbike and there is violation of policy terms and conditions of the policy and also the provisions of M.V.Act?

(3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and against whom?

(4) What order?

5. The claimant examined as PW2 in order to prove the disability and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Respondent No.2 examined its Administrative Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and after considering the material on record, recorded the finding that the claimant has proved the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-29/K-7257 by its rider and the claimant has sustained injuries in the said accident and also held that the respondent No.2 has proved the rider of the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-29/K-7257 had no driving licence to drive the motor bike and there is violation of policy conditions and provision of the M.V.Act and also held that the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation and allowed the claim petition against respondent No.1 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% on the said amount from the date of petition till realization.

7. The claimant being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal. This Court vide order dated 30.08.2012 issued notice to the respondents and the postal envelop cover, notice issued to the respondent No.1 but returned with postal shara “IMAGE" in respect of R1”. Thereafter the petitioner has filed an application bringing LRs of deceased respondent No.1. This Court allowed the application vide order dated 08.06.2021 permitted the claimant to bring the LRs of deceased respondent No.1.

8. H