The court ruled that contributory negligence assessment by the Tribunal was sound, while modifying the compensation based on a more accurate income assessment, leading to a total compensation of Rs.27,93,120.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. MFA No.103784/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and shifting of entire liability on the Insurance Company, whereas MFA No.102632/2023 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging saddling of 80% liability on it. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC No.2302/2021 on the file of XI Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi [For short ‘Tribunal’]

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 11.07.2021 at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased-Prasad Gaonkar was proceeding from Dharwad to Haliyal riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-31/Y-5533 along with pillion rider- Raghavendra Hedge. When he reached near the spot of the accident i.e. Sai Dhaba, rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/HB-6930 came from Halligeri towards Dharwad in a high speed. It was ridden in rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control on the motorcycle and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Dharwad and after first aid, he was shifted to SDM, Dharwad wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. On 16.07.2021, he succumbed to the injuries while under treatment. It is averred that the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident, he was studying in 2^nd year M.Sc. and also working as a Nodal Lab Assistant at KIMS Hubballi and earning a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimants, who are the parents and sibling of the deceased have filed claim petition seeking compensation.

3. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the deceased. They have denied age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased and the pillion rider were not wearing helmet at the time of accident. As a result, violating Section 129 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . It was also contended that the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of another motorcycle. Therefore, the petition was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that the offending vehicle did not have valid RC and FC and the rider of the motorcycle was not in possession of an effective DL at the time of accident. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The claimant No.1 examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38. The respondents did not adduce oral evidence and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,34,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by recording a finding that deceased contributed to the accident to the extent of 20% by directing the Insurance Company to pay 80% of the total compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as the Insurance Company are before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. Smt.Sunanda P.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased has contributed to the accident and saddled liability at 20%. It is submitted that the deceased was highly qualified earning Rs.31,000/- per month as is evident from Exs.P15 to P18. It is submitted that the deceased was 2^nd year M.Sc. student and was working during the Covid period and was earning, which demonstrate that he had a capacity to earn more than Rs.31,000/- per month. It is submitted that the rider of the offending motor