The burden of proving negligence lies on the party alleging it, and the court must consider various factors, including income and future prospects, in determining the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

M.F.A.No.831/2015 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas, M.F.A.No.26/2015 has been filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the judgment dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and from the same judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10.01.2012, the deceased SN Sathyanarayana was riding a moped bearing registration no.KA-05-HB-1193 on Nayandanahalli Ring Road, near Pantharapalya, Bangalore. At that time, a lorry (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle' for short) bearing Registration No. MP-09-HG-0340, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the hind side and dashed against the moped of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and was employed as a Relationship Manager at ING Vyasya Bank, Sadashivanagara and was earning a sum of Rs.10,27,620/- per annum. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the liability of the insurance company, if any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1, Reddappa Setty (PW2), V. Sundaran (PW3) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The respondents examined Padmanabban R (RW1), Girija DP (RW2), T Mallesh (RW3), CK Surya Prakash and got exhibited documents viz., Ex.R1 to Ex.R14(a). The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.47,38,664/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erred in not assigning contributory negligence on the part of the deceased when the evidence of RW3 T Mallesh as well as Ex.P5 IMV report, Ex.R4 Sketch and Ex.R9 Spot Sketch clearly disclose that the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident. It is further submitted that the place of accident is a busy road and that there would not have been any occasion for driver of the offending vehicle to drive the same in a rash and negligent manner. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for in this regard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has invited our attention to paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the