JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Amey Kakodkar for the Appellant, Mr. Kurtikar for Respondent No.1, and Mr. A. R. S. Netravalkar for the Respondent No.3-insurer of the Sumo vehicle. The remaining respondents are duly served but are neither present nor represented in this appeal.

2. This appeal is instituted by the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.GA-08-L-0632, which was involved in the accident with the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.GA-09-A-9264 on 18.02.2014. The claimant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle and suffered injuries that resulted in his permanent disablement.

3. The Tribunal has held that the motorcycle driver was solely responsible for the accident and not the driver of the Tata Sumo. Further, the Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs. 23,50,000/- and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition.

4. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the insurer of the motorcycle, submits that leave was obtained under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the insurance company is entitled to raise all contentions. He proposes that the evidence on record establishes that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the Tata Sumo driver. In the alternative, he submits that this is a case of composite negligence, and the Tribunal erred in not holding the driver of Tata Sumo equally responsible for the accident. He proposed that the combined negligence should be assessed on an equal basis between the driver of the motorcycle and the Tata Sumo driver.

5. Mr. Kakodkar referred to the pleadings on record. He submitted that the accident occurred in the middle of the road when the Tata Sumo driver saw the motorcycle about 3 to 4 meters away before the accident. He submits that the Tata Sumo driver and his witnesses have taken contradictory stands in variance with the pleadings. He offers that Gregorio Menezes (RW5) was not an eyewitness to the accident and his testimony deserved rejection.

6. Mr. Kakodkar also submitted that the claimant was drawing a salary for only 11 months in a year, and the Tribunal overlooked this aspect. However, Mr. Netravalkar, learned counsel for the insurance company, as the insurer of the Tata Sumo vehicle, pointed out that the claimant earned a salary only for 10 & 1/2 months a year and not 12. Based on this, the learned counsel submitted that the computation made by the Tribunal is incorrect, and the same must be reduced.

7. Mr. Vaman Kurtikar, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that this was indeed a case of composite negligence. However, on the issue of quantum, he proposed that the award towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities is inadequate. He pointed out that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability since his right leg has been paralyzed. He submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. - 2020 ALL SCR 1616 awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Therefore, he submits that the compensation amount should be enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000/-.

8. Mr. Netravalkar submits that there is no evidence of any rashness and negligence on the part of the Tata Sumo driver. On the other hand, he states that there is clear evidence of rashness and negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. He points out the evidence of the Tata Sumo driver, his wife, his brother, and Gregorio - an independent eyewitness. He submits that the evidence of all these witnesses establishes that the accident occurred due to the motorcycle driver's rashness and negligence.

9. Mr. Netravalkar submits that the motorcycle owner/driver did not even choose to file any written statement in the matter. He, therefore, offers that their testimony is of no avail and should have been rejected by the Tribunal.

10. Mr. Netravalkar submits that the sketch attached to the panchanama corroborates the ocular evidence of the