The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of presenting consistent and credible evidence to support a claim for compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. The judgment emphasizes the need for claimants to substantiate their case with reliable evidence and to refrain from filing false complaints.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Khazi, J. - This appeal is by respondent No. 1-Insurance company challenging the impugned judgment and award, whereby the Tribunal has quantified the compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,07,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit Rs. 1,52,250/- being 30% of the total compensation and thereby attributing 70% negligence on the part of the deceased.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

3. FACTS: It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, children and mother of deceased-Kumaraswamy. On 13.10.2007 at about 11.30 p.m., deceased was moving on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA-43-H-4012 slowly and cautiously on the left side of Basettihalli Industrial Area. In front of Taffee Factory, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-34-A-5426 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner, in a high speed came and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased from his back side. Due to the impact, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru, deceased succumbed to the injuries on 06.11.2007.

3.1. Deceased was doing catering business at Plot No. 7A, Industrial Area, Doddaballapura and getting profit of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Being the wife, children and mother, petitioners are entitled for compensation. Respondents are liable to pay the compensation as the Insurer and Insured of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting the coverage of the offending vehicle, but its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. It has disputed that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license. It has denied the involvement of the offending vehicle and the manner in which the alleged accident took place as well as the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

5. Respondent No. 2 has also denied the averments with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Since the offending vehicle was covered by a valid Policy issued by respondent No. 1, in the event of allowing the petition, respondent No. 1 is liable to indemnify him.

6. Based on these pleadings, tribunal has framed issues.

7. At the first instance, during the course of enquiry, petitioner No. 1 is examined as PW-1, one witnesses as PW-2 and Ex. P1 to P13 were marked for petitioners.

8. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No. 1, RW-1 is examined. The driver of the offending vehicle is examined as RW-2 and Ex. R1 and 2 were marked.

9. By judgment and award dated 05.08.2010, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/-, but held that deceased has contributed 30% negligence to the accident and therefore, petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,07,500/- being 70% of the total compensation and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally to pay the same.

10. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said judgment and award in MFA No. 191/2011, whereas petitioners filed MFA. No. 2733/2011 for enhancement. Vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2013 this Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and award dated 05.10.2010, remanded back the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to allow both parties to let in evidence on the question whether driver of the lorry or deceased or both of them were negligent and if so to what extent and thereafter pass necessary order.

11. After the remand on behalf of the petitioners two more witnesses are examined as PWs-3 and 4.

12. On the other hand after remand on behalf of the respondent No. 1 one witness is examined as RW-3. However, after the remand the Tribunal has not determined the compensation afresh, but only gave finding with regard to the extent of contributory negligence i.e., it held that deceased wa