The court affirmed that the claimant failed to prove negligence by the defendant, ruling that the deceased was responsible for the accident, hence dismissing the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT :

(UMESH M. ADIGA, J.)

Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 06.03.2013 passed in MVC.No.155/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT-6, Davanagere (for short 'Tribunal'). MFA.No.4765/2013 is filed by the claimants and MFA.No.4461/2013 is filed by the insurer.

2. The claimants have filed appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation. The insurer has filed the appeal on the ground of false implication of the vehicle. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.11.2010 around 10.30 p.m. the deceased Jagadish and PW-2 - Prabhudeva were going on the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-16U-5229 towards Kariyamanahalli. Prabhu deva was riding the said motor cycle and deceased was the pillion rider. Around 10.30 p.m, when they reached near the pond of Kariyammanahatti village, the rider of the said motorcycle rode it rashly and negligently, as a result of it, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained injury. He was shifted to Bharamasagara Government Hospital and for higher treatment, he was shifted to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.11.2010.

5. On 13.11.2010, one Manjanna lodged the complaint as per Ex.P2 and on that basis, Cr.No.434/2010 of Bharamasagara police station was registered. It is further contended that deceased was aged about 29 years. He was an agriculturist and businessman, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant No.2 is the daughter and claimant No.3 is the mother of the deceased. They were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.

6. Respondent No.1 in his written statement admitted the facts of the accident. He further contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event if claim petition is allowed, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation.

7. Respondent No.2 in his written statement denied the contentions of the claimants. It is further contended that the motorcycle bearing No.KA-16-U-5229 was not at all involved in the alleged accident and that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. Claimants fabricated story of accident and in collision with owner of the vehicle it was falsely implicated. The claimants, therefore were not entitled for compensation. It also denied liability on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. On the basis of rival contentions, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its determination.

9. The claimants to prove their case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to 3 and marked documents as per Exs.P1 to Ex.P8. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as per Ex.R1 and R2. The Tribunal after hearing the parties held in its judgment that Jagadeesh died in the road traffic accident caused by rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by PW-2.

10. Learned counsel for claimants vehemently contended that PW-2 was the rider of the motorcycle. He admitted in his evidence that he was the rider of the vehicle and the deceased was the pillion rider; when he applied the brake, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries; and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. In the cross-examination of PW-2, nothing was brought out to discard his evidence. PW-3 is the complainant, he stated about lodging the complaint and also stated that the deceased was a pillion rider. These facts though challenged in their cross-examination by the respondent No.2 but were not disproved. Ex.P1 to P6 corroborates the contention of the claim petitioners. The investigating officer, without any reason, observed in Ex.P7 that accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased, but nothing is mentioned in the charge sheet. For some reasons, he suspected