In motor vehicle accident cases involving multiple negligent parties, liability can be apportioned based on contributory negligence, allowing claimants to recover compensation from any joint tortfeasor.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a appeal by the Insurer against the judgment and award dtd. 7/2/2019 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.823 of 2018 challenging quantum as well as negligence/liability to pay compensation.

2. Heard the learned Advocate, Shri.B.Pradeep appearing for the appellant through video conferencing. Similarly, Shri.N.Gopalkrishna, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who is also appearing through video conferencing.

3. We refer the parties herein as per their rank before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimants on 2/10/2017 at about 2.30 p.m., mother of claimants by name Chandini, all the claimants were proceeding as pillion riders in the two wheeler bearing No.KA-08-V-6925 and her husband Mohammed Athaulla was riding the said motor cycle. When reached near Nidaramangala Gate, on Malur-Tekal Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the said motor cycle met with an accident by an tipper lorry. Due to the impact, pillion rider, Smt.Chandini fell down from the two wheeler and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Rider of motor cycle and claimants had sustained simple injuries. After the accident, the driver of the tipper lorry did not stop his vehicle and spead away from the spot. The rider of two wheeler had filed complaint to police and after investigation police had filed 'C' report as driver was not traceable.

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-08-V-6925. Both of them have appeared before the Tribunal and Respondent denied the contention of the claimants and contended that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry, which is un-identified vehicle and only with an intention to claim compensation made allegations against rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against Respondent No.2.

6. The Tribunal had framed necessary issues for consideration.

7. The claimants had examined PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The Respondents have examined RWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and appreciating pleadings and evidence by impugned judgment and award, dtd. 7/2/2019 awarded compensation of Rs.15, 78, 000.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and the same is challenged by Respondent No.2 in the present appeal.

9. The learned Advocate for appellant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not considered the rash and negligent driving of the unknown vehicle and accident had taken place due to the said reason. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay the compensation. In the alternative, he submits that the rider of the motor cycle took the vehicle to the wrong side of the road and accident had caused at the middle of the road, therefore, entire negligence cannot be fastened on the rider of the motor cycle. It is also further submitted that amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side and prays to re-calculate the same.

10. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence properly and rightly held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler by its rider and awarded compensation, in accordance with law. Therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.

11. It is not in dispute that accident had taken place between an unknown tipper lorry and two-wheeler and death of Chandini in the said accident. The claimants are minor children of Chandini. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal has considered Issue Nos.1 and 2 at Para Nos.20 to 25 and arrived at conclusion that accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of rider of two-wheeler and driver of tipper lorry. Considering oral evidence of PW-2 and Exs.P2 and P3, it can be held that accident was caused due to the negligence of both the drivers and they are casually responsi