The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the preponderance of probabilities standard in motor vehicle accident cases and the assessment of compensation based on evidence of income, disability, and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

1. The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 25/3/2013 passed in MVC No.373/2011 by the Fast Track Court & MACT, Kundapura filed the appeal in MFA No.6005/2013. The insurance company - respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the same judgment filed MFA No.5782/2013.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are that on 24/1/2011 at about 12.00 hours on Perduru - Heriyadka Road, Pakkalu, Udupi Taluk, the claimant was traveling in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-7615 from Beloor to Udupi side, when the said lorry reached at Pakkalu of Heriyadka Village there was a mechanical defect in the lorry and the driver of the said lorry was parked the lorry in the side of the road and the appellant-claimant was in lorry cabin. At that time, the driver of the goods lorry bearing registration No.MEG-7809 drove the same from Udupi side in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and due to over speed, the driver of the lorry lost control over the same and dashed against the parked lorry. Due to the said mistake, claimant sustained injury and he took treatment in KMC hospital, Manipal and Ashraya hospital, Chikkamagalur. Due to accidental injuries, the claimant is not attending his work and lost income. The claimant is not in a position to do any work thereby sustained permanent disability and the claimant has lost future income. The concerned claimant has raised case against the person who was driving the said lorry bearing registration No.MEG7890.

4. The respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant has filed a petition under Sec. 166 of MV Act claiming compensation. During pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are impleaded. Respondents have filed their written statements.

5. Respondent No.1 has filed written statement admitting about the accident as alleged by the claimant in the claim petition but denied the other averments in the claim petition and it is contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and vehicle was driven by the driver who was holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle and prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Respondent No.2 has filed a written statement denying averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-7615 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said goods lorry bearing registration No.MEG-7890 and it is head on collision. The alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-7615 and it is further contended that both the drivers are not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Respondent No.3 field a written statement admitting ownership of lorry bearing registration No.KA-7615. It is also admitted that accident stated by the claimant in claim petition are true and correct and it is also admitted that on the date of accident, claimant was travelling as owner of goods jaggary bags in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-7615 from Beloor of Hassan to Udupi. It is contended that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.MEG-7890 by its driver and it is contended that driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-7615 has not committed any mistake. The said lorry insured with respondent No.4 and policy was valid as on the date of accident and driver of the said lorry was holding valid and effective driving license to drive the lorry at the time of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Respondent No.4 filed written statement denying the petition averments and it is contended that there was no negligence on part