The court reassessed compensation for injuries sustained in an accident, considering contributory negligence and permanent disability in line with established legal principles.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Appeal is filed by the Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 29.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.181/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast track Court-IV, Belagavi.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The petitioner and his wife, were proceeding on a motorcycle. At that time, a car bearing registration No.MH- 07/Q-3555 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

3. During the pendency of the claim petition, the owner of the offending vehicle died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives did not file a statement of objections. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the statement of objections as not filed.

4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the common issues.

6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence but marked one document as Ex.R-1.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization by holding that the petitioner being the owner of the motorcycle is not entitled for 25% of the compensation amount (i.e., 75% of Rs.1,65,000/-) and respondent No.1(a) and respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of the compensation amount.

8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, filed this appeal.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the petitioner has contributed negligent for causing the accident in question and is not entitled for 25% of the compensation amount. He submits that due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident has occurred. He also submits that the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2008. As per the schedule, monthly income of the petitioner is to be assessed at Rs.4,250/- wherein the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. He further submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the contribut