JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04-09-2010 passed in MVC No.299/2009 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, and Member, Addl. MACT, Mysore, whereby, the claim petition came to be dismissed, the petitioner/appellant is before this Court in appeal urging various grounds.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as below:

That, on 14.05.2009 at about 3.00 p.m. petitioner was proceeding in scooter bearing reg. No. KA 06/H 6745 as a pillion rider along with the petitioner in MVC 301/2009 as a rider towards Kanchamalli village from Hampapura and when they reached Kanchamalli Tank, a tempo bearing reg.No.KA 45/1821 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the scooter of the petitioner in which he was travelling. As a result, both the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately they were shifted to J.S.S. Hospital at Mysore, where, they took treatment as out patient and inpatient respectively. Petitioner was aged about 47 years and working as businessman and earning about Rs.6,000/- p.m. Because of the accident he sustained loss. It was further contended that, 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and 2nd respondent is insurer of tempo bearing regn No.KA 45/1821 and as such, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.5,27,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. In response to the summons issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and filed separate written statement denying all the allegations made in the petition as false, frivolous, vexatious and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further contending that tempo bearing reg. No.KA 45/1821 was insured with 2nd respondent subject to the terms and conditions of policy. Further, contending that the driver of tempo bearing Reg NO.KA 45/1821 had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, the insurance company has disputed the liability. It is the further case of respondent No.2 that, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of scooter bearing reg. No. KA 06/ H 6745 by the petitioner in MVC No.301/2009 and he was under intoxication of alcohol and as such, it is self fall while avoiding vehicle coming from opposite direction and therefore, no liability can be attached to it and since the accident was occurred between the two vehicles, the owner and insurer of scooter bearing reg. No.KA 06/H 6745 are also proper and necessary parties and that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, the compensation amount and the interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration.

6. The Tribunal clubbed both the petitions filed by the rider and pillion rider and recorded common evidence. Petitioner in MVC No.299/2009 and MVC No.301/2009 have examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 and examined the Doctor as PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P30. On the other hand, respondents examined two witnesses as RWs- 1 and 2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.R1 to R8.

7. The Tribunal after hearing and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on file, dismissed both the petitions.

8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner in MVC No.299/2009 has preferred this appeal co