MFA 1205/2021 is filed by the Insurance

Company and MFA 1803/2021 is filed by the claimants

under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9, for short) being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.12.2020 passed

5

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in

MVC 6464/2013.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

briefly stated are that on 6.6.2013 at about 9.00 a.m.,

when the deceased Narasimhamurthy being the rider

of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HK-7956

was proceeding towards Bengaluru after attending

relative9s marriage on the left side of the road on NH-

7, when he reached near Sree Sai Priya Restaurant,

Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, at that time,

a car bearing registration No.KA-01-ME-5807 which

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from

behind. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was

shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and succumbed to the

injuries on 14.6.2013.

6

3.

The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4.

On service of summons, the respondent

No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written

statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition

itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The

mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of

MV Act are not complied. It was further pleaded that

the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties. The deceased was not holding valid driving

licence as on the date of accident. The liability is

subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence,

he sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent No.2 appeared through counsel

and filed written statement in which the averments

made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that

7

the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of

law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due

to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by

the deceased himself. The age, occupation and income

of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded

that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the petition.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.2 as PW-1,

Mr.Umashankar, Manager of the deceased as PW-2,

Mr.Chandra.N., eyewitness to the accident as PW-3

and Mr.T.C.Shivakumar, Investigating Officer as PW-

4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were

examined as RWs-1 and 2 and got exhibited

8

documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of contributory

negligence. The Tribunal further held that after

deducting 30% negligence on the part of the

deceased, the claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.712,040/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the said compensation amount

along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals

have been filed.

6.

Mr.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the

Insurance

Company

has

raised

the

following

contentions:

Re: Negligence

The accident occurred due to sole negligence of

the deceased himself. He was riding the motorcycle on

the national highway without following the traffic rules

9

and immediately he has taken U-Turn to go to the

other side of the highway to the petrol bunk to fill

petrol. Hence, the accident has occurred. He further

contended

that

the

car

was

proceeding

from

Bangalore to Hyderabad. The motorcycle was coming

from Hyderabad to Bangalore. In a junction, the

deceased/rider of the motorcycle took U-turn and

suddenly entered