The court confirmed the necessity of correctly assessing contributory negligence and future income prospects when determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing adherence to prior legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

K.MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.17/2011 dated 13.11.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala. The Insurance Company has challenged the negligence attributed on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2010, at about 7.30 p.m., when deceased Sri.Kantharaju and Sri.Rukmangada were going on a Motor cycle (unregistered) towards Haralakere village, when they reached near the land of Jalaiah a Mahindra Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-11-T-6670/6671 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and hit the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, deceased Sri.Kantaraju who was traveling as a pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to General Hospital at Nagamangala. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Mandya and then to Nimhans and Sharavathi at Bengaluru. Deceased was taking treatment as an inpatient but succumbed to the injuries on 22.12.2010. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondents have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statement. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in their written statement has contended that the deceased is alleged to have contributed to the accident and the respondent No.2 has insured the vehicle with respondent No.3 and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No.3 in its written statement has contended that the accident has caused due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and the petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The motor cycle was purchased on 22.01.2010 and the accident had occurred on 26.07.2010 and the vehicle till then was never registered with any RTO. Sri.Rukmangada was riding the motor cycle with two other pillion riders. It has contended that driver of the Tractor was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants have examined four witnesses as PWs-1 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-11. The respondents have examined three witnesses as RWs-1 to 3 and got marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.3.

6. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.11,86,024/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is contrary to the documents and evidence on record and the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability at the rate of 70:30 on the insurer and the claimant respectively, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability in the ratio of 50% each as there were three persons riding on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has also erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month without any proof of income