Negligence findings upheld; compensation re-assessed based on claimant's injury and financial needs.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M. POONACHA, J.)

The present appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’] challenging the judgment and award dated 09.11.2016 passed in MVC No.266/2012 by the Principal District Judge and MMACT, Chikkamagaluru, [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal’]

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

3. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 09.11.2016, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,77,700/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer who, was arrayed as respondent No.2, before the Tribunal to deposit the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer.

4. The relevant factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeal is that claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 15.04.2011 the claimant filed a claim petition, whereunder it is the case of the claimant that when he and his son were returning from Balehonnour in a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-18-L-4192 as a pillion rider, another motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-18-L-3797 came from the opposite direction at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle in which the claimant was traveling causing the accident in question, wherein the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

5. In the claim proceedings the owner and insurer of the offending motor cycle were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The owner and rider of the motor cycle in which the claimant was traveling were subsequently, arrayed in the claim proceedings are as respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Tribunal. The insurer who was respondent No.2 in the claim proceedings entered appearance and contested the same by filing statement of objections. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 entered appearance through a counsel. However, no statement of objections have been filed.

6. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and doctor as CW.1. The representative of the insurer was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 09.11.2016 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,77,700/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed respondent No.2 – insurer of the offending motor cycle to deposit the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the finding of the Tribunal on negligence as well as on the quantum of compensation awarded.

7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri BS Umesh appearing for the appellant – insurer that the son of the claimant who was rider of the motor cycle had filed the claim petition and after objections were filed by the insurer the said claim proceedings was withdrawn. It is further contended that the son of the claimant did not have a licence to drive the vehicle. That the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect of the matter while adjudicating upon the negligence. It is further contended that the police documents itself demonstrate the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. It is further contended that the accident was head a on collusion between two motor cycles. The mahazar (Ex.P3) clearly demonstrates that the width of the tar road was 18 feet and there was 12 feet mud road on either side of the