JUDGMENT :

Petitioners in MVC No.82/2016 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi have challenged the impugned judgment passed by the said court dated 05.12.2016 claiming enhancement of compensation so also to fix liability to pay compensation on respondent No.2.

2. It was the case of the appellants that on 22.10.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., deceased Satyappa along with petitioners were going in a motorcycle bearing No.KA22/EN5774 from Khanapur towards Nesargi. The rider of the motorcycle bearing KA24/S2598, rode his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, within the jurisdiction of Hanabarahatti village. Due to impact, Satyappa had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. It is further contention of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, he was mason and earning Rs.600/per day as wages. Petitioners are wife and son of the deceased, were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Respondent No.2 denied all petition averments and it has also contended that rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle and owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, prayed to reject the petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, Tribunal has famed the issues:

6. To prove the respective contentions, petitioners examined P.W.and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent No.2 has examined R.W.and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

7. The Tribunal heard the arguments and by the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2016 awarded compensation of Rs.20,53,000/-with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount and directed respondent No.1 to pay the said amount and respondent No.2 was exonerated.

8. At the time of hearing on admission, with the consent of learned counsels for both the sides, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that deceased was a mason and earning Rs.600/-per day i.e., Rs.18,000/-p.m. The Tribunal has not considered the same and taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-p.m., which is erroneous. It is further contended that petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-, however, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,53,000/-.

The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation. Therefore, prayed to enhance the amount of compensation. He has further contended that rider of the offending motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence and in catena of judgments, it is held by the Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Court that in such cases, the Tribunal has to direct the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of vehicle. The third parties cannot be asked to go behind the owner of vehicle to recover the amount. In support of his contention, he has relied upon few judgments.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant, the Tribunal rightly fixed liability on respondent No.1 to pay compensation. There is no need to interfere in the said findings. He has further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are also excessive. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.9,000/-p.m., which is also on higher side. He has further contends that accident had taken place during the year 2015. Normally while settling the disputes in the Lok Adalaths, notional income of victim of an accident that has taken place during 2015, is taken as Rs.8,000/-p.m. He further submitted that when the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle, respondent-insurance company