The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence by the lorry driver, determining compensatory adjustments based on established income precedents.

JUDGMENT

MACA Nos.203 of 2014 and 1776 of 2014 arise from the very same award dated 31.05.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.1789 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a petition filed for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. MACA No.1789 of 2014 arise from O.P(MV) No.2446 of 2006 dated 31.05.2013, a petition filed for the damages caused on the motorcycle. Since these appeals arise from the same cause of action, they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

2. M.A.C.A.Nos.1776 & 1789 of 2014 are filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded for the injuries as well as the compensation for the damages sustained to the motorcycle, where as MACA No.203 of 2014 is filed by the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

On 17.06.2006 at about 11.00 am, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-11/T 5394, a lorry bearing reg. No. KL-9/N 949, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal in OP(MV) 1789 of 2006, claiming a total compensation of ₹3,78,000/- rounded to ₹3,70,000/- for the death of the deceased whereas the claimants in OP(MV) 2446 of 2006, approached the tribunal claiming compensation for the damages caused to the motorcycle.

4. The first and second respondents, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal RW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10, Exts.X1(a) to X1(c) and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, in OP(MV) 1789/2006, awarded a sum of ₹2,70,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs and in OP(MV) 2446/2006, awarded a sum of ₹12,000/- as compensation for damages caused to the bike with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.

6. The insurance company mainly filed the appeal challenging the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry alone. According to the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle/deceased in causing the accident. The deceased, Philip, while entering the National Highway, proceeded from south to east without exercising due care or caution. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the lorry was proceeding in its proper direction from west to east, keeping its northern side on the road, which is its correct side. The two-wheeler ridden by the deceased took a tangential turn and entered the National Highway without noticing the lorry moving on the northern side. The two-wheeler collided with the lateral front portion of the lorry, as a result of which the deceased was thrown towards the rear portion of the lorry and the rear wheel ran over his body. Owing to the injuries sustained in