The main legal point established is that in a motor vehicle accident, negligence can be attributed to multiple parties, and compensation should be determined based on the nature of injuries and notional income, with liability apportioned between the owner and insurer of the vehicles involved.

JUDGMENT

1. All the claimants in these appeals are the injured victims who have challenged the rejection of their claim petition in M.V.C.No.2105/2006 as well as the award of meagre compensation in M.V.C.Nos.2104/2006 and 2106/2006 by the Fast Track Court-I and Member, Addl. MACT, Belagavi.

2. The claim petition discloses that all the three claimants were riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-07/K-6747 from Savantwadi to Morgaon. When they reached near the Maruthi temple, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-23/M-3887 (offending vehicle) driven from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimants suffered injuries and were treated at Goa Medical College, Panaji. The claimant in M.V.C.No.2104/2006 claimed that he was a skilled worker doing centering work and was earning Rs.5,000.00 p.m. The claimant in M.V.C.No.2105/2006 claimed that he was employed in a private company and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000.00 p.m. while the claimant in M.V.C.No.2106/2006 claimed that he was also doing centering work and was earning Rs.5,000.00 p.m. All of them filed claim petitions claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim petitions contending that the accident was due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimants. He contended that the vehicle was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid licence and therefore, it was the insurer who was bound to indemnify him.

4. The insurer, on the other hand, claimed that there were three persons riding on the motorcycle and therefore, the claimants were negligent. It also claimed that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider himself. Based on these contentions, the claim petitions were set down for trial.

5. The claimants were examined as PWs-1, 2 and 3 and a doctor was examined as PW-4 and they marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. The insurer marked the policy of insurance by consent. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the charge-sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle. It also held that he was negligent in riding the vehicle and caused the accident and therefore, the claim petition filed by him in M.V.C.No.2105/2006 was rejected.

6. In so far as the claim petition in M.V.C.Nos.2104/2006, it held that the claimant had suffered condylar fracture of right femur and was treated between 3/5/2005 and 6/5/2005 and awarded the following compensation:

S. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards pain and suffering	Rs. 20,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	Rs. 4,000/-
3.	Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 5,000/-
4.	Towards loss of income during treatment period	Rs. 9,000/-
5.	Towards loss of amenities	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Towards loss of future income	Rs. 97,200/-
	Total	Rs. 1,45,200/-

7. In so far as claimant in M.V.C.No.2106/2006 is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that he had suffered fracture of right fibula and tibia and therefore, awarded the following compensation:

S. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards pain and suffering	Rs. 25,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	Rs. 3,000/-
3.	Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 3,000/-
4.	Towards loss of income during treatment period	Rs. 9,000/-
5.	Towards loss of amenities	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Towards loss of future income	Rs. 84,240/-
	Total	Rs. 1,39,240/-

8. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the owner of the motorcycle was liable to pay the compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant in M.V.C.No.2105/2006 cont