The court clarified standards for establishing liability in motor vehicle accidents, affirming compensation adjustments based on loss of dependency and future prospects, in accordance with established precedents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal in MFA No.20883/2012 is filed by the insurance company questioning liability and the cross objection in MFA CROB No.100038/2020 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Both these matters are arising against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Itinerate Sitting, Byadgi, in MVC No.58/2007.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court.

4. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

5. It is the case of claimants that on 13.08.2006 at about 9.20 p.m. in the night hours the deceased was coming from Havari towards Chikkerur on Haveri Kaginehalli road by riding his motorcycle No.KA-27/K-338 along with his friend one Mahesh Ingalagondi and while so travelling, in between Chikkaingadahalli and Kurubanagonda villages, near poultry farm, all of a sudden the said motorcycle got struck of and as such the deceased Shivappa had stopped the motorcycle and while attending the motorcycle for repairing, at that time the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/L-3908 came from Haveri towards Kaginehalli with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased Shivappa and immediately he was shifted to hospital, but without responding to the medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 13.08.2006 and on the next day his son had filed complaint on 15.08.2006 as per Ex.P.1 and P.2.

6. Upon the claim petition, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. by fastening liability on the insurance company.

7. The insurance company has preferred appeal on various grounds and the learned counsel for appellant insurance company argued in commensurate with the motorcycle No.KA-27/L-3908 was falsely implicated in the case. Further argued that the pillion rider who has witnessed the accident and also taken the injured to the hospital, who is an eye witness to the accident has not filed the complaint, but son of the deceased who is not an eye witness to the accident has lodged the complaint. Thus, it is a case of false implication of vehicle to claim compensation. Further submitted that either of the vehicle were not damaged. Therefore, this falsifies the case of the claimants. Therefore, on these grounds argued that the case is a false one. Hence, pray to set aside the judgment and award passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the accident occurred on 13.08.2006 at about 9.20 p.m., and immediately on 15.08.2006 complaint was lodged. Hence, there is no delay in lodging complaint. He further argued that as per the information given by pillion rider of the motorcycle, the son of the deceased has lodged the complaint before the police. The complaint is in a natural course, as it was night time, the pillion rider did not notice the registration number of offending vehicle completely. Therefore, in a natural course of phenomena, registration number of offending vehicle was not reflected in the complaint. But upon conducting investigation, the police have filed chargesheet against the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-3908. Therefore, there is no false implication of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K- 338 in this case. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by