The court affirmed the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing the preponderance of probability and the need for evidence in establishing liability in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. MFA No.94/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’ for short), by the Oriental Insurance Company to allow the present appeal and modify the judgment and award dated 16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.860/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Udupi (‘the Tribunal’ for short). MFA No.2668/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of the MV Act to allow the appeal and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.94/2015.

2. The appellant in MFA No.94/2015 is the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and respondents No.2 to 4 herein are the respondents No.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. The appellant/respondents in MFA No.2668/2015 herein are the claimant/respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The claim petition is filed under section 166 of the MV Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.22,10,420/- towards the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that.

4. On 26.09.2009, the claimant was traveling beside his father, who was driving lorry No.KA-20-987 from Kozhikode to Udupi, when a goods vehicle bearing No.KL-11-B-4013, allegedly driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, swerved to the right and dashed with their lorry. The father of the claimant died at the spot and the claimant suffered grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Calicut Government Hospital and claims loss of income, medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity.

5. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending that the petition is false, frivolous, vexatious, and unsustainable in law and on facts. The respondent No.2 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement, while respondent No.3, though served with summons, remained absent and was placed ex parte.

6. The respondent No.4 filed a written statement asserting that the petition is not maintainable and contains false claims, though it admitted that the insurance policy for the vehicle was valid at the time of the accident. It further contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident, and therefore the insurer is not liable. The respondent No.4 also filed an application under Section 170 of the MV Act and sought dismissal of the petition.

7. In order to substantiate the claim the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and one other as PW-2 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P-1 to P-12. The respondents have not examined and not marked any document as witness.

8. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal framed the issues and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,65,920/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Further, respondents No.1 and 2 are exonerated from the liability and the respondents No.3- Smt.Farzana and 4-Oriental Insurance Company i.e., the owner of the lorry No.KA-20-987, and the Insurer were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.94/2015 would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidentiary record and proceeded on erroneous assumptions regarding the claimant’s status in the insured vehicle. The material on record, including the claimant’s own documents, does not e