The court ruled that the evidence of negligence established sufficient grounds for compensation, holding the driver of the offending vehicle primarily responsible for the accident despite any contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

These appeals have been filed by the injured/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 02.11.2016 passed in MVC.Nos.139/2012, 152/2012 and 153/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hangal (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the appellants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by them in a road accident dated 07.10.2011. It is averred that the claimants were proceeding on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27-L-5478 and the rider of the motor cycle rode the same by following traffic rules. When they reached near Hosalli Village, the driver of a tempo trax bearing Reg.No.KA-16-P-2929 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, resulting in a serious accident. It is further averred that the rider of the motor cycle and other two pillion riderssustained grievous injuries, and they were provided treatment at District Government Hospital at Haveri and thereafter, at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. It is also averred that the claimants sustained permanent physical disability due to the accident, they lost happiness, suffered financial loss and incurred substantial amount towards the treatment. Accordingly, they sought an award of compensation for the damages suffered by them in the road accident.

3. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petitions. They denied the age, income, avocation and injuries suffered by the claimants and contended that no accident had occurred to the bike in question on 07.10.2011. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimants examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P54. The respondent did not adduce oral evidence but with the consent got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the claimants have failed to establish that there was an accident to the bike in which they were proceeding and that they had filed the false claim petitions. Consequently, Tribunal proceeded todismiss the claim petitions. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal.

4. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that the jurisdictional police filed the charge sheet stating that the driver of the tempo trax was negligent and caused the accident in question. However, the Tribunal without any justifiable reasons refused to take note of the charge sheet material only on the ground that charge sheet was filed six months after the registration of the complaint. It is further submitted that the jurisdictional police seized the vehicle involved in the accident as per Ex.P4 and in the further statement of the complainant, it was clearly stated about the involvement of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that the MVA report at Ex.P8 pertaining to tempo trax indicates that the said vehicle suffered damage due to a road traffic accident and the driver of the said vehicle had also admitted the guilt and paid the fine amount in criminal proceedings and these aspects have not been appreciated by the Tribunal in its properperspective which has resulted in dismissal of the claim petitions. Hence, he seeks to allow the claim petitions by awarding just compensation to each of the claimants based on the evidence available on record.

5. Per contra, Sri. G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of