JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurance company and perused the Trial Court records.

3. The appellants are the claimants in MVC No.500/2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Raichur (Tribunal for short). They have sought for a total compensation of Rs.54,50,000/for the death of Huliraj son of appellant No.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3.

4. It is the case of the claimants that on 10.11.2017 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA36/S3889 along with a pillion and near Yermarus towards Micro tower byepass, in front of Madhav Cotton Mill, a Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.TS05/UB6104, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and with a high speed came from opposite direction in a zigzag manner and to the wrong side of the road so as to endanger human life. The driver of the said vehicle lost control of the vehicle and hit against the motorcycle, as a result of which the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and Huliraj died on the spot and pillion rider by name Hari was taken to the hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained by him.

5. On behalf of the claimants, appellant No.2, father of the deceased was examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked through his evidence.

6. The Tribunal was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs.8,86,000/along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. However , the tribunal held that respondent No.2 is liable to the extent of 75% of the said amount and remaining 25% shall have to be borne out by the petitioners themselves.

7. The Tribunal on the basis of the document at Ex.R4, the indemnity bond executed by the owner of the vehicle and his statement given to the police stating that deceased did not possess any driving licence and the vehicle was not having insurance coverage, proceeded to hold that, under the said circumstances 25% negligence can be attributed on the owner of the motorcycle and 75% negligence is attributable against the driver of the Bolero vehicle and liability can be fastened on the insurance company-respondent No.2 to the extent of 75%.

8. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.TS05/UB6104. The Tribunal on a perusal of Ex.P2, the spot panchanama and the sketch came to the conclusion that the Bolero jeep came from the opposite direction i.e. from Micro tower side towards Yermarus side and crossed the middle portion of the road and went another three feet towards right side and dashed to the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. It is further observed that the rider of the motorcycle was on the correct side and on the left side of the road from Yermarus to Micro tower side. Hence came to the conclusion that accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle by its driver, which resulted in the death of rider of the motorcycle Huliraj, who died on the spot.

9. Having perused the spot sketch, it is clear that the rider of the motorcycle i.e. deceased Huliraj was on the left side of the road and the Bolero vehicle crossed the middle portion of the road and went to the wrong side and caused the accident. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle by its driver is fully justifiable. The question before us is that whether contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased who was the rider of the motorcycle on the ground that he was not possessing driving licence and the said motorcycle was not insured.

10. Firstly, the Tribu