In vehicle accident cases, a prima facie involvement of the vehicle suffices for establishing liability, and compensation should reflect just and reasonable amounts based on correct income assessments.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 23^rd March 2020, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Udupi, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.977/2017.

2. MFA.No.4550/2020 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and MFA.No.723/2021 is filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle alleging that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case just to claim the compensation and that the accident did not occur as alleged in the claim petition.

3. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, therefore they are taken up together for disposal.

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

5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.05.2017, at about 7.15 to 7.30 p.m., in front of old RTO office bus stand, Adi Udupi, deceased Muddu met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-20-C-7932. Due to the impact, said Muddu sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as inpatient for 11 days in the hospital and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 31.05.2017. Claimants being the daughters of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.10,02,350/-.

6. Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending autorickshaw. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

7. The respondent No.2-insurer filed its written statement, denying the contentions of the claim petitioners. It denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

9. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 13 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondent No.2 has examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2.

10. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that Muddu met with an accident involving the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-20-C-7932, and that he died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal also held that his income was Rs.8,000/- per month, applied the multiplier as `5', deducted 50% towards personal expenses and awarded the following amount of compensation :

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent-insurer.

12. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the insurer is that Ex.R-1 reveals the deceased had sustained injuries due to an assault, on 21.05.2017 and the time as 7:00 p.m. To clarify this aspect, the insurer examined RW-1; the doctor, and to establish that Muddu did not die due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident, the insurer examined RW-2. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the evidence of RW-2 is sufficient to disbelieve the case of the claimants.

13. The learned counsel further contended that, admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the accident except one Abubacker. In the criminal case, the said Abubacker was examined as CW-2, and in his evidence, he did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he had not witnessed the accident. The claimants have not examined any other eyewitnesses to prove the occurrence of the accident. The