Insurer has presented this appeal challenging the

judgment and award dated 16.09.2017 passed in MVC No.475

3

of 2015 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar (for short 8the Tribunal9).

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3.

Heard Shri A N Krishna Swamy, learned advocate

for the appellant and Shri Abhinay Y T, learned Amicus Curiae

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4.

Brief facts of the case are, respondents Nos.1 to 5

being the legal representatives of deceased Karim Saheb filed

the instant claim petition contending inter alia that on

07.08.2015, the said Karim Saheb was driving a tractor and

trailer loaded with stone slabs from Palamaner Town towards

Nangali. The lorry bearing registration No.WB-41-D-7573

(offending lorry) driven in a rash and negligent manner

dashed against the trailer, as a result of which, the stone

slabs were broken into pieces. The driver did not stop the

lorry and sped away. Karim Saheb chased the offending lorry

in the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AH-7054 as

a pillion rider. The motor cyclist over took the lorry and gave

signal to stop. However, the driver hit the motor cycle, as a

4

result of which, the pillion rider - Karim Saheb sustained

injuries and succumbed to the same. It is stated that the

accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the offending

lorry and therefore, the owner and the insurer are liable to

pay the compensation.

5.

The claim petition was resisted by the appellant-

insurer. The claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P19 in support of their contention. The

Tribunal after taking into consideration the materials placed

before it, came to the conclusion that the accident in question

had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.15,94,500/-.

Being aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this Court.

6.

Shri A N Krishna Swamy, learned advocate for the

appellant submitted that the materials placed before the Court

disclose that the deceased chased the lorry and he himself is

responsible for the mishap. Therefore, he contributed atleast

to an extent of 50% in causing the accident. This fact was

not considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation.

He also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in

5

taking future prospectus at 50% even though the deceased

had no permanent job and income. Therefore, the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for

interference.

7.

Per Contra, Shri Abhinay Y T, learned Amicus

Curiae for respondent Nos.2 and 3 justifying the impugned

judgment and award submitted that since the driver of the

offending lorry after causing the accident and damages to the

stone slabs, proceeded further without stopping the lorry, the

driver of the tractor trailer was forced to chase the lorry with

an intention to stop the same. However, the lorry in question

did not stop, on the other hand, it dashed to the motor cycle

which has resulted in his death. Therefore, the deceased was

in no way responsible for the accident and no contributory

negligence could be attributable to him. However, he fairly

conceded that the future prospectus should have been

assessed at 40% instead of 50%.

8.

We have considered the rival contentions carefully

and perused the records.

6

9.

In support of the case of claimants, the first

claimant who is the wife of deceased Karim Saheb got herself

examined as PW1. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness.

The claimants examined one Sri.G P Manjunatha as PW2 as

the eye witness to the incident. He has filed his affidavit in

lieu of examination-in-chief and stated that he himself chased

the offending lorry in his motor cycle, wherein, Karim Saheb

was the pillion rider. Witness also stated that near Nangali

Bus stop, he overtook the lorry and as he attempted to stop

it, the lorry came and hit the motor cyc