The court confirmed that the burden of proof does not rest solely on claimants in negligence cases and adjusted compensation based on proper calculations of income and loss.

ORAL JUDGMENT

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

This appeal is by the Insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/X-0681, and the Insurer is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2020 in MVC No.474/2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, allowing the first and the second respondents' claim petitions under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'], has allowed the petition awarding these respondents and the fifth respondent compensation in a sum of Rs.24,02,849/- along with interest at 8% per annum apportioning the compensation in the ratio of 40:10:50 amongst these claimants. The Tribunal has granted compensation as aforesaid under the following heads:

2. The first and the second respondents [the claimants, and are referred to accordingly] have presented a claim petition contending that the deceased, Sri K M Chandrashekar, married to the fifth respondent, has died because of the injuries suffered in a road accident on 11.11.2016 when he was on the pillion of the third respondent who was riding the motorcycle owned by the fourth respondent. The claimants have asserted that the deceased was working both as an agricultural labour and a farmer and earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month.

3. The Insurer has filed a Statement of Objections, admitting that the motorcycle was covered under a valid and effective Policy, but taking general contentions such as that the third respondent did not hold a valid driving licence. The Tribunal has framed Issues for consideration, and these Issues relate to whether the claimants prove that the deceased died in a road accident because of the negligent and rash driving by the third respondent and the compensation to which they would be entitled.

4. The first claimant [the first respondent] has examined herself as PW1, and the fifth respondent has examined herself as RW1. The first respondent in her chief examination has essentially reiterated the contents of the claim petition, and in the cross- examination on behalf of the Insurer, she has admitted that the deceased was hospitalized for more than a month but has denied the suggestion that the deceased was riding the motorcycle himself and the accident was because he was rash and negligent. The fifth respondent has deposed in consonance with the evidence rendered by the first respondent.

5. The Insurer examined its Senior Branch Manager, Chikkamagaluru as RW.2, and this witness has stated that the deceased was riding the motorcycle and has caused the accident and that this is showed by the records of Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga. The witness has also stated that the Police have registered First Information and completed investigation. The police have filed charge sheet against the third respondent to help the claimants and the fourth respondents to sustain their claim in the present proceedings.

6. The claimants have marked the Police records as also Discharge Summaries issued by M/s. Holy Cross Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and Maax Super Speciality Hospital, Shivamogga. These documents are apart from the Medical Bills and a letter issued by the Chikkamagaluru District Plumbers Union. The Insurer through its witnesses has marked MLC Register Extracts from M/s Nanjappa Hospital, M/s. Maax Super Speciality Hospital, Shivamogga and M/s. Malle Gowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. Crucially, the Insurer has also marked the copy as a certified copy of the Ju