The court found that both motorcycle riders share equal negligence in an accident, leading to an enhancement of compensation awarded for injuries sustained, emphasizing the need for equitable assessments.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 14^th July 2014, passed by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.772/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 01.10.2011, around 11.30 p.m., the claimant was going on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-V-2207 alongwith pillion rider Jayaprakash. When he reached Bhavikatte petrol bunk on National Highway No.4, the said vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EC- 4236. As a result of the impact, claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. For the said reasons, claimant prayed for awarding of compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claimant himself was responsible for causing the accident in question and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer of the offending motorcycle denied the contents of the claim petition. It is stated that riders of both the motorcycles were not holding effective and valid driving licence. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

7. Claimant to prove his case himself examined as PW-1 and examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 15 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-15. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked.

8. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded following amounts of compensation:

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erroneously held that riders of both motorbikes caused accident and apportioned the negligence between riders of the motorcycles. The respondents have not examined eye witnesses to show that major negligence was of the claimant. The claimant came to the other side of the road, since the other part of the highway was under repair. That was noted in the impugned judgment. The Investigating Officer in the charge sheet has clearly stated that accident has taken place due to negligence of riders of both the motorcycles. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the negligence equally instead of putting more negligence on the claimant. It needs to be reconsidered by this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant further stated that claimant had examined the treating doctor as PW-2. He has clearly stated that claimant had suffered permanent disability of 25% to the whole body, that was not considered by the Tribunal without any justifiable reasons. He further contended that claimant was selling the p