Accurate documentation and witness testimony are crucial in establishing liability and compensation, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2014 passed in MVC.No.108/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar (for short the 'the Tribunal').

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Respondent No.1 is driver of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of the offending vehicle tractor.

4. It is the case of the claimant that on 04.01.2011, when he was going by the side of the road, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-17-TA-8832 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. He took treatment and spent huge amounts and is now suffering from a permanent disability. It is also contended that he was aged about 60 years at the time of accident and he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 - insurer denied the contents of the claim petition. It was further contended that as per the medical records, the claimant had fallen from the tractor and sustained injuries. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim compensation. It is further contended that the insurer's liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the insurance policy, including the requirement for the driver of the said tractor to possess a valid and effective driving license. On these grounds, the insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, framed the necessary issues.

7. The claimant to prove his case examined five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and marked documents Exs.1 to 16 and closed his evidence. Respondent No.3 examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R3 and closed its evidence.

8. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident . However, the Tribunal also found that the accident did not occur as alleged in the claim petition but rather resulted from a fall from the tractor. Therefore, exonerated respondent No.3 from paying the compensation. Assessing the materials placed on record, the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation:

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the grounds of appeal, contended that PW-3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the accident. They have clearly stated the date of the accident and that PW-1 was hit by the tractor. Respondent examined RW-1, who has corrected the mistake stated by the claimant in the hospital. He further contended that due to pain and suffering, the claimant initially gave incorrect information and thereafter corrected the same, this is reflected in Ex.R1. This, however cannot be a valid ground to disbelieve the case of the petitioner or reject his contention. During the cross-examination of PW-1, the occurrence of the accident was not at all denied. Similarly, in the cross-examination of PWs-3 to 5, nothing was brought out to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, the contention of the injured that he fell from the tractor and susta