The court upheld the Tribunal's apportionment of liability for accident compensation, establishing 70% liability on the Insurance Company for payments with recovery rights against the motorcycle owner, validating negligence findings.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

MFA.No.101347/2024 is filed by the parents of the pillion rider in MVC.No.2523/2019, MFA.No.100121/2024 is filed by the wife of the pillion rider in MVC.No.2523/2019, MFA.No.100345/2024 is filed by the wife of the pillion rider in MVC.No.2061/2019, MFA.No.103134/2024 is filed by the parents of the rider in MVC.No.2522/2019 and MFA.Nos.100210, 100206 and 100208 of 2024 are filed by the Insurance Company in MVC.Nos.2523, 2061 and 2522 of 2019, respectively. These appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 11.08.2023 passed in the above said claim petition by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Bailhongal, [for short ‘Tribunal’]

2. The parties henceforth are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 27.08.2019 the deceased Kareppa was proceeding on a Bajaj motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/X- 1814 as a pillion rider from Belawadi village to Bailhongal along with his friend Dilavarsab who was riding the said motorcycle by following the traffic rules. When they reached Bailhongal – Dharwad road near the land of Smt.Akkavva Hugar, at that time, one Ashok Leyland HGV truck bearing registration No.KA-25/A-3284 came from Bailhongal side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said motorcycle which resulted in accident. The rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. It is averred that the rider and the pillion rider were working in the Indian Army and the claimants are the parents and wife of the deceased who filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [for short, ‘MV Act’] .

4. The respondents-Insurance Company as well as the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident entered appearance, filed their objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. In MVC.Nos.2523/2019 and 2061/2019 the Tribunal recorded the evidence of the mother and wife of the deceased who have been examined as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The respondents examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. Whereas, in MVC.No.2522/2019 the Tribunal recorded evidence of the claimants. The claimants examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. The respondents examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 and R.2.

6. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings urged and evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,13,96,424/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in MVC.Nos.2523/2019 and 2061/2019 and Rs.55,08,334/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in MVC.No.2522/2019. The Tribunal further recorded the findings in the claim petitions that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent and contributed to the accident and hence, saddled the liability of payment of compensation to the extent of 30% on the owner of the motorcycle and 70% on the Insurance Company which has insured the lorry involved in the accident.

7. In MVC.Nos.2523/2019 and 2061/2019 the Tribunal apportioned the compensation at 40% to the wife of the deceased Kareppa, 40% to the mother of the deceased Kareppa and 20% to the father of the deceased Kareppa. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company as well as the claimants are before this Court in these appeals.

8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the owner of the truck. Meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.

9. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the impugned judgments and awards of the Tribunal both dated 11.08.2023 passed in MVC.Nos.2523, 2061 and 2522 of 2019 call for any interference?

10. The Tribunal framed points for consideration in the aforesaid claim petitions and recorded the finding with regard to the l