The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence and apportionment of loss in determining liability and compensation in motor accident claims.

1. Heard Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Keny, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.

3. By this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 06/07/2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao ('the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 60/2010. Respondent no.1 was the claimant; appellants were respondents no. 1 and 2, being rider and owner of the offending vehicle; and respondent no. 2, the insurance company, was respondent no. 3 in the said Claim Petition No. 60/2010. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the Claim Petition.

4. The claimant had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Ac, 1988 ('M.V. Act' for short) for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-on the account grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident which injuries resulted in permanent disability. The claimant alleged that on 21/07/2009, he was proceeding from Margao to Cuncolim and on reaching to Panjorconi, he took his motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-08/H-9715 to fill petrol and was then proceeding towards Cuncolim. On reaching at Kakanamodi, Cuncolim, barely 500 metres away from the Petrol Pump, he noticed a bus stopped on the left side of the road for the passengers to alight and a scooter bearing registration No. GA-08/B-2004 behind the said bus as one faces from Margao towards Cuncolim. The claimant was riding the motorcycle at a slow speed and since front view was clear and as there was no other vehicle coming from opposite direction, he decided to overtake the bus to go ahead. However, the rider of the motorcycle No. GA-08/B-2004, all of a sudden, took his scooter in the middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precaution and without looking on the road, in order to enter the right side of the village Kakanamodi, and in that process, gave dash to the motorcycle of the claimant and then dragged him to the right. The passengers from the bus got down and helped the claimant who was shifted to NUSI Hospital at Panjorconi and thereafter, to Apollo Victor Hospital at Margao. The claimant suffered injuries to his leg apart from other fracture injuries thereby hampering his work and earning capacity. The claimant sustained permanent disability of 20%. The claimant was 35 years old as on the date of accident and was working as motorcycle pilot and thereby earning Rs. 10,000/-per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him, the claimant was confined to the house for almost six months and his future prospects had also become bleak. The claimant claimed compensation as under:

(i) towards medical expenses: Rs. 25,000

(ii) towards travelling expenses: Rs.8,000/-

(iii) towards loss of income: Rs. 60,000/-

(iv) towards loss of blood; pain and suffering and loss of future income: Rs.2,02,000/-

(v) towards Miscellaneous expenses. Rs.5,000/-

Total: Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. There was amendment carried out to the Claim Petition subsequently to add that the claimant was called at the Cuncolim Police Station by Head Constable U. Naik who obtained signature of the claimant on various papers and asked him to go and that the claimant had not received any checking memo from the police to whom he had paid Rs. 800/-.

6. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement alleging that the accident was the outcome of the fast speed, rashness and negligence of the claimant himself and that since the negligence was on the part of the claimant himself, an offence under Section 184 of the M. V. Act for driving dangerously on the road was booked against him and the claimant admitted his guilt and paid the fine. Thus, respondents no. 1 and 2 alleged that they were not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent no. 3 had disputed its liability on the grou