JUDGMENT :

These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 17.09.2016 in MVC No.998/2011 passed by the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hubballi (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. The brief facts so far as the same are relevant for the present purposes are that on 31.12.2009 at 9.30 p.m., while the claimant, who is appellant in one of the appeals was returning to Hubballi from Kerur in KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA25/F803, a lorry which was parked partly by the side of the road and partly on the tar portion of the road, having not been clearly sighted, the bus collided against the same and due to the impact, the claimant-appellant suffered grievous injuries. On his presenting a claim petition, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through a common learned advocate and respondent No.4 entered appearance through its panel counsel. They filed their separate Written Statements denying the material averments in the claim petition.

3. During trial, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and he also examined a Medical Expert as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked for the claimant. Respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,23,000/with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with liability to pay the same, apportioned in the ratio of 70:30 between respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the one side and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other.

5. The insurer of the offending truck is in appeal before us advancing three fold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the apportionment of liability to pay compensation on the offending truck to the extent of 30% is wholly against the weight of evidence inasmuch as it was parked by the side of the road and further the NWKRTC bus being a heavy vehicle fitted with bright headlights and therefore, the NWKRTC bus having collided against the stationery truck, the learned Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability to pay the compensation on the NWKRTC itself.

6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the insurer of the offending truck is that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum and also in fixing the date of liability to pay the interest on the compensation amount with effect from the date of the claim petition ignoring earlier order of the Tribunal itself dated 21.10.2015 on I.A.No.8, which is to the effect that the liability to pay the interest on the compensation shall commence on the date when the claimant closes his evidence.

7. His last submission is that the learned Tribunal has fixed the higher notional income for the claimant inasmuch it has proceeded on the premise that he was earning Rs.6,000/per month, the date of accident being 31.12.2009, whereas as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is being followed throughout the State, the notional income for the year 2009 was only Rs.5,000/per month. On these contentions, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the offending truck submits that his appeal is entitled to be allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the NWKRTC, per contra, contends that the weight of the evidence clearly shows that the offending truck which was stationery was not entirely parked on the road side margin and on the other hand, it was parked partly on the tar portion of the road and the owner of the truck or the insurer has not placed any evidence to show that the parked vehicle was displaying parking lights, which is mandatory under the Act and the Rules. He further submitted that the evidence clearly shows that on the date of the accident, it was raining and this also added to the low visibility f