JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16-11-2016 passed in MVC No.827/2015 by the learned II Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), whereby the petition came to be allowed in part and a sum of Rs.3,13,018/- has been awarded as compensation, the petitioner has approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement urging various grounds.

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

3. The brief facts are as below:

On 04.07.2014, at about 10.40 a.m. the petitioner along with one Shivappa had been to Bagepalli on motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-R-2001 to attend some work at Bagepalli and when they reached Nallappa Reddypalli Cross, at that time, the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing Reg. No. MEV-4545 came from Bagepalli side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle. Due to the said impact, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Bagepalli, for first aid treatment and later, was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. It was further contended that, prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Agriculture, Sericulture and Dairy farming and has income of Rs.5,000/- P.A. out of Agriculture, Rs.4,000/- P.A. from Sericulture and Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- p.m. from Diary farming and he was contributing for the welfare of the family maintenance and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has sustained permanent disability and not able to do any work as before. Hence, claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their separate objection statement.

5. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in its objection statement had admitted that it had issued the policy in respect of Car bearing Reg. No. MEV-4545, but its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent further contended that the driver of the said ambassador Car was driving the same carefully and cautiously by observing all traffic rules, but the petitioner riding his vehicle without having proper look out of the traffic, rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing vehicular traffic and suddenly came to the middle of the road and hence accident took place solely due to negligence on the part of the petitioner.

Both the respondents have contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further they contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the said Car bearing Reg. No. MEV- 4545 and entire negligence is only on the part of petitioner. Both the respondents have disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant and speculative. On the above grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings and contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues for its consideration. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined himself as PW-1 and one witness was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked. The respondents have not lead any evidence.

7. On hearing both the sides and considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal has partly allowed the