The court held the Tribunal's findings on vehicle involvement as just and proper, despite discrepancies, and reassessed the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’] challenging the judgment and award dated 11.11.2016 passed in MVC No.758/2012 by the II Additional District Judge and III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (DK), [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 relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that on 21.02.2012 when the claimant was walking on the side of the road, a motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-EA-7193 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant causing the accident in question, wherein the claimant sustained injuries. Claiming compensation for the injuries, the claimant instituted claim proceedings arraying the owner and insurer of the offending motor cycle as respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The claim proceedings was contested by respondent No.2 – insurer. The claimant was examined as PW.1. The Investigating Officer was examined as RW.1 and the representative of the insurer was examined as RW.2. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 11.11.2016 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the insurer.

4. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri Ravi S Samprathi appearing for the appellant – insurer and learned counsel Sri G Ravishankar Shastry appearing for respondent No.1 – claimant.

5. It is a vehement contention of learned counsel for the insurer that the insured vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the accident and the same is evident from the statement made by PW.1 in the cross-examination, where PW.1 has stated that the vehicle was a “Hero Honda” motor cycle where as the other material on record would indicate that the insured vehicle was a “Bajaj Discovery” motor cycle. Reference is also made on the other material on record including Exs.P3, 5 and 8. Reference is made to chargesheet (Ex.P8) and it is contended that the vehicle in question mentioned in the chargesheet was KA-19-EA-2193 whereas the insured vehicle was KA-19-EA-7193. It is further contended that the doctor has not been examined and that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. Hence, learned counsel seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting of the relief sought for.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant justifying the finding of the Tribunal on negligence contends that the Investigation Officer (RW.1) in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the number of the vehicle has been erroneously written as ‘KA-19-EA-2193’ in the chargesheet (Ex.P8) and that the actual number of the vehicle is ‘KA-19-EA- 7193’ which is the insured vehicle. It is further contended that the statement of PW.1 in the cross-examination that the vehicle in question was a “Hero Honda” motor cycle is a stray sentence and the same will not aid the case of the appellant – insurer. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the above appeal.

7. The contentions put forth by both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal have been perused.

8. The questions that arise for consideration are:

i. Whether the finding o