The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on compensation for injuries sustained in an accident, emphasizing the burden of proof on the claimant regarding negligence.

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

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the owner and rider of the motorcycle challenging the judgment and award dated 21.11.2011 passed in MVC No.169/2006 by the learned Fast Track Court, and Additional MACT, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short).

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

On 02.02.2006 at about 10.30 pm, the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle on Station Road, Gadag, from Gandhi Circle to Mahendrakar Circle. A motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-26/J-678, which was ridden by the rider in a rash and negligent manners to endanger human life, dashed to the bicycle, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that the claimant incurred more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 40 years, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, the claimant is unable to do day-to-day work, as he used to do before the accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , claiming the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the age, occupation, income and denied that his vehicle had caused the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

4. Respondent No.2-rider of the motorcycle, filed a written statement denying the age, occupation, income and address of the claimant. It is denied that he has caused the accident to the claimant. Hence prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

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

6. The claimant, to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. In rebuttal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal were examined as RWs.1 and 2, examined one witness as RW-3, and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide Judgment dated 21.11.2011. It is ordered that the claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.4,60,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the global compensation amount from the date of petition till its complete realisation, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and rider of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and shall deposit the award amount within two months from the date of the award.

8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-the owner and rider of the motorcycle, respectively, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, have preferred this appeal.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner and rider, and the learned counsel for the claimant.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, i.e. Respondent No.2. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle i.e., Respondent No.2. He submits that a charge-sheet is filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He also submits that, to prove the permanent disability, he examined the Doctor as PW.2. The Tribun