The main legal point established is the calculation of compensation entitlement based on legal provisions and legal precedent.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. MFA Nos.11490/2012 and 11491/2012 are filed by the Insurance Company under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, 'the Act') and MFA Crob.Nos.4/2015 and 5/2015 are filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 6/10/2012 passed by the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT at Bengaluru City, in MVC Nos.1446/2009 and 1447/2009. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals and cross objections are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals and cross-objections briefly stated are that on 1/2/2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased Prakash was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/E-85 on Sathnur Kabbal road along with Anwar Pasha as a pillion rider. At that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-05/T-3702 and 1012 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and rider died on the way to the hospital.

3. The claimants filed petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they have spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, funeral expenses etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the deceased and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants in all examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1. 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, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and Prakash succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6, 96, 280.00 and Rs.85, 000.00 respectively, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit 70% of the award amount and owner of the trailer to pay 30% of the award amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals and cross objections have been filed.

6. Sri H.S.Lingaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the tractor was not negligent in causing the accident. But the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the tractor has contributed 70% to the accident. Secondly, as per the sketch and mahazar it is clear that it is a head on collision. The deceased has also contributed to the accident. But the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the tractor alone has contributed to the accident. Thirdly, the Insurance Company has examined the officer of the company as RW-1. He has categorically stated that the deceased who is the rider of the motorcycle was negligent in causing the accident. The driver of the tractor was not negligent in causing the accident. He has followed all the procedure of law and traffic rules. The Tribunal without considering the evidence of RW1 and without considering the IMV report - E