The court established that liability lies with the NEKRTC due to negligent driving, and modified compensation amounts in accordance with statutory guidelines for income and disability assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the NEKRTC, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and the liability in common a judgment dated 17.04.2021 passed in MVC Nos.281 and 282 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

On 29.10.2014, the petitioner in MVC 282/2015, his father Thippanna Vaddara were going on a motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MD621BD18A1D62458 towards their native place. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road. At that time, a NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-37/F-176 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and his father, Tippanna died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioner in MVC 282/2015, and the legal representatives of the deceased Tippanna in MVC 281/2015, filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking the compensation on account of road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The NEKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, and the rider contributed to the cause of the accident. The petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed common relevant issues.

6. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 in MVC No.281/2015 was examined as P.W.1, petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 was examined as P.W.2, and marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, and no documents were produced on their behalf.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 17.04.2021, and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,69,2440/- in MVC No.281/2015 and Rs.6,71,197/- in MVC No.282/2015 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. The NEKRTC, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the NEKRTC, and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the NEKRTC submits that the rider of the motorcycle contributed to the cause of the accident, and there was contributory negligence. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 has not examined the doctor to prove his disability, and the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15%, which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and not against the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals.

11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the par