The court highlighted the necessity of accurate injury assessment and impact of negligence in determining compensation, ultimately reflecting on the principles of just and reasonable award for damages.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K. B., J.

1. These are the appeals filed by the appellant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V.Act’), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.202/2015 and 203/2015, dated 21.07.2016, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The common case of claimants in short before the Tribunal is that, when both claimants were standing with motorcycle of claimant in MVC No.202/2015, on the side of Rattihalli-Ranebennur road, on 03.09.2014 at 11.30 a.m., a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-152, came from Rattihalli side towards Ranebennur and collided with goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A- 6251, which in turn collided to the motorcycle and because of it, both claimants have sustained injuries in the accident. The claimants claimed that, they have sustained the following injuries.

Injuries sustained by the claimant in MFA No.102985/2016 (MVC No.202/2015)

i) Fracture of condyle of right tibia;

ii) Fracture of surgical of right shoulder;

iii) Fracture of 3^rd and 5^th metatarsal bones.

Injuries sustained by the claimant in MFA No.102984/2016 (MVC No.203/2015)

i) Fracture of ulna of right forearm;

ii) Fracture of the right ankle lateral mallulus;

iii) Fracture of the right clavicle bone.

4. The claimants further contended that, immediately after the accident, after taking first-aid treatment in the Government Hospital, they have been to Apoorva Hospital, Davangere, wherein they have taken treatment as in-patients from 03.09.2014 to 16.09.2014 and spent huge amount towards their treatment. Due to that, they have sustained physical disability. They were working as coolies and because of the accident, they cannot do any work. Hence, prayed for compensation under different heads.

5. On receipt of notice, respondent has filed objection statement, wherein he has taken contention that, the accident happened not because of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, but because of negligence of motorcycle rider and goods vehicle and a false charge-sheet is filed against the bus driver. They have also denied the other averments made in the petition regarding the age of claimants, nature of injuries sustained by them and their avocation and income.

6. On behalf of claimants, both claimants were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 apart from examining the doctor as P.W.3 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 before the Tribunal. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1.

7. After recording the evidence of both the sides and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has been proved and claimant in both the cases are entitled for compensation at Rs.3,03,024/- and Rs.3,15,210/- respectively, under following different heads:

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimant in MFA No.102985/2016 (MVC No.202/2015)

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimant in MFA No.102984/2016 (MVC No.203/2015)

8. Aggrieved by granting of compensation and saddling entire liability on respondent, respondent/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the appeal papers along with the records of the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for appellant Sri S.C. Bhuti, would submit that there is contributory negligence on the part of claimants also because they were standing on the road talking with each other by parking the motorcycle and hence, some contributory negligence is the