JUDGMENT

These three appeals are preferred by the insurance company challenging the common judgment and award passed by the VI Additional Judge Court of Small Causes, MACT at Bengaluru City dated 1.3.2014 in MVC Nos.8535/2010, 8536/2010 and 8537/2010. These appeals are premised on the ground that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and hence to set aside the same.

2. The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.9.2010 at about 03.00 p.m., the claimant (in MVC No.8537/2010), one Prabhakar, was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.CKS 2720 with his friends viz. Upendrakumar and Harish as pillion riders. While they were so proceeding on the motor cycle on Bangalore ring road, near Sumanahalli Road so as to go to Laggare at Kempegowdanagar, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-B-3050 belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed so as to endanger human life, dashed against the motor cycle ridden by Prabhakar thereby causing serious injuries to the rider as well as two pillion riders. Due to the accident, the rider i.e.,Prabhakar and two pillion riders fell down from the bike but unfortunately, one of the pillion rider, Sri Upendra Kumar came under the wheels of the lorry and died on the spot. Accordingly, three claim petitions came to be filed; one by the legal representatives of the deceased Upendra Kumar and two claim petitions by the injured rider and the pillion rider.

4. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the lorry in all the three cases remained absent and was placed exparte and respondent No.2-

Insurance Company filed detailed objection statement inter alia denying the contentions of the claim petition and objecting to the averments with regard to the claim and pleaded that the compensation claimed was exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions as per the grounds urged in the objection statement.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants examined themselves as PWs 1 to 5 and also got examined doctors as PWs 6 and 7. They got marked exhibits P1 to P34 in support of their cases. The respondent No.2- Insurance Company examined its officer as RW1 and got marked exhibits R1 to R3 in support of its case.

6. On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal partly allowed all the three claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- in MVC No.8535/2010, Rs.2,16,120/- in MVC No.8536/2010 and Rs.2,54,900/- in MVC No.8537/2010.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company is in appeal questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that there is contributory negligence on behalf of the rider of the motor cycle who was riding the motor cycle along with two pillion riders which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy so also against the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the rider of the motor cycle is responsible for the occurrence of the accident as he was not diligent and he was carrying an extra person as a pillion rider in the motor cycle and being unable to control the vehicle, has contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, he contends that the very fact that there were two pillion riders apart from the rider itself pre-supposes that an inference has to be drawn that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor which has been ignored and given a go-by by the Tribunal. On this sole ground the present appeal is filed attributing contributory negligence as against the rider of the motor cycle. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the tribunal has failed to