IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance with helmet laws constitutes contributory negligence but does not negate the right to compensation; courts must ensure just compensation reflecting actual losses.

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.09.2020 passed in M.V.C. No. 164/2016 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional District and Sessions Jude, Ramanagara (for short ‘the tribunal’).

2. The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

3. Brief factual matrix of this appeal is as under:

On 05.03.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., the claimant being the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-42-U-5623 was riding the same on the National Highway which runs between Bengaluru and Mysuru. The claimant was riding towards Mysuru. While he was proceeding in front of Jain Temple and Lotus Factory situated at Vaderahalli Village, Ramanagara Taluk, a motor Car bearing registration No. KA-42-M-255 owned by respondent No. 1-Sri. Noor Ahmed Sayeed and insured with respondent No. 2 namely, M/s. The Universal Shampoo General Insurance Co. Ltd., driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cyclist from behind. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained head injury and injuries to his back and waist portion. He was immediately taken to Ramanagara District Hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital at Bengaluru. Thereafter, he took treatment as an inpatient at M/s. Rangadore Memorial Hospital on two occasions besides undergoing medical surgeries therein. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards his medical treatment and other incidental expenses.

4. It is stated that the claimant was having his own concern and working as a Manufacturer of Wooden Toys and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, he had lost his monthly income. These are all the contentious contentions taken and also urged in the claim petition before the tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has not filed any written statement. The order dated 02.09.2016 indicates that the written statement of the respondent-owner was taken as ‘not filed’.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the claim petition, the tribunal had formulated certain issues and answered the same based upon the evidence and the documents exhibited. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the claimant, an opportunity was given to the respondents to lead their evidence, if any on their behalf. No such evidence was adduced by them subsequent to framing of the issues.

7. On the basis of the materials on record, the tribunal had granted the compensation as follows:

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant- claimant has preferred this appeal by urging various grounds.

9. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Raju S. for the appellant and also learned counsel Sri. Pradeep B. for respondent No. 2.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 and the documents exhibited at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, which includes the medical bills total worth of Rs.1,45,825/- to show that the appellant-claimant sustained injuries and expended towards medical expenses.

11. Perused the impugned judgment and award rendered by the tribunal inclusive of the evidence which has been facilitated on the part of the claimant as well as on the part of the respondents and the documents exhibited at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 including Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

12. It is necessary to mention that to arrive at a conclusion in awarding compensation as sought for in the claim petition, the tribuna