JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

The petitioner in MVC No.835/2013 before the II Additional Senior civil Judge and AMACT -8, Shivamogga, is before this Court in appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. and directed the 3rd and 4th respondents to deposit the same in the ratio of 80:20.

3. The factual matrix of the case are as below:

It is the case of the petitioner that on 9-6-2012, the petitioner and her husband i.e., respondent No.4 before the Tribunal were moving on a Scooty bearing No.KA.14.EA/7970 and she was a pillion rider. At about 7.10 a.m. on Shivamogga- Sagar road, a Maruthi Omni car bearing No.KA.14.M/5536 came in high speed, in negligent manner and dashed against the scooty. As a result, petitioner and her husband fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner was taken to Nanjappa hospital, Shivamogga, where she took treatment as inpatient and thereafter, she was shifted to KMC Hospital Manipal where she took treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. But inspite of the medical treatment injuries are not cured and still she is taking treatment. It is further contended that, at the time of accident, petitioner was aged about 68 years and she has suffered disability and un-comforts and therefore, she is entitled for the compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has also arrayed her husband as respondent No.4 before the Tribunal.

4. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have appeared and filed their objection statements.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied any actionable negligence attributed to them and contended that the accident was due to the sole negligence on the part of respondent No.4, the rider of the two wheeler.

6. The respondent No.3 admitted the cover of insurance on the Maruthi Omni vehicle, but contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and unsustainable and that the terms and conditions of the policy had been violated and as such, it is not liable to pay the compensation.

7. The respondent No.4 admitted the accident, but claimed that there was no negligence on his part and accident was solely due to negligent act of respondent No.2 and he is not necessary party to the petition and only to escape from liability, respondent No.3 has imp-leaded him and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues and the petitioner was examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked in evidence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments by both sides and on perusal of the records, came to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner i.e., respondent No.4 had also contributed to the extent of 20% of the actionable negligence, since he did not possess a valid driving license to drive a two wheeler. Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.52,000/- and directed the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner in the ratio of 80:20. It is the said judgment which has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court in this appeal.

9. The appeal was admitted and on issuance of notice, respondent No.3- Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and other respondents did not appear despite service of notice.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitioner submits that none of the respondents had contended that there was any contributory negligence, but the Tribunal came to the conclusion that th