JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.03.2010 in MVC No.756/2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IX, Ballari (for short "the Tribunal"). The insurance company aggrieved by the said judgment and award has approached this Court in appeal.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner before the Tribunal contended that on 06.04.2007 while he was going by walk towards KSRTC Bus depot, at about 4.30 p.m., the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/J-523 came from hind side of the petitioner and dashed him causing injuries and he was taken to VIMS hospital, Ballari where he took treatment as an inpatient. The said motorcycle belonged to respondent No.2 before the Tribunal and it was duly insured by the respondent No.3- insurance company. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

After service of notice to respondents, respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 did not file their written statement however, respondent No.3-insurance company filed its written statement denying the contents of the petition. Respondent No.3-insurance company disputed the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and also disputed its liability on the ground that the said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. It was contended that the motorcycle involved in the accident as per FIR and the complaint was bearing registration No.KA-34/K-6246 but not the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/J-523. It was alleged that latter motorcycle was implicated to claim compensation and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Apart from that it was also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner was highly exorbitant and untenable in law.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and a witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to 13 were marked in evidence. One of the officials of the respondent No.3-insurance company was examined as RW1 and a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R1. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.97,580/- and directed the respondent No.3-insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company is before this Court.

5. The insurance company contends that although there was fraud and misrepresentation a alleged by it, the Tribunal has erroneously ignored the documentary evidence on record and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. It was contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/J-523 had pleaded guilty before the Criminal court and the Tribunal saddled the liability upon the appellant-insurance company but the Tribunal ought to have held that when a fraud and misrepresentation was alleged, the pleading guilty of the rider of the motorcycle could not have been a relevant fact. Therefore, it was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is against the settled propositions of law. Apart from that, it also contended that the partial permanent disability @ 8% af