These two appeals are filed against the judgment and

award dated 16.03.2011 passed by the MACT-IX, Ballari, in

M.V.C.No.521/2010, by the Insurance Company and the

claimant respectively questioning the contributory negligence to

the extent of 50% fastened on the Insurance Company and

seeking for enhancement of the compensation by the claimant.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the

Tribunal is that on 08.03.2010 at about 2.15 p.m. when the

claimant was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing registration

No.KA-34/9543 as a paid passenger from Kurugodu to Kolagallu

near Yerrangali village bridge on Kurugodu Ballari road, the

driver of a pick up van bearing registration No.KA-34/A-2071

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed

- 5 -

from Ballari side and both the vehicles dashed against each

other. As a result of the same, the claimant sustained grievous

fracture injuries and she was admitted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari,

wherein her right leg was amputated. The claimant spent a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the

accident, the appellant has become physically and permanently

disabled. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition before the

Tribunal seeking for compensation.

In

pursuance

of

the

claim

petition,

respondent

No.3/insurer of the pick up van filed the objections denying the

negligence on the part of driver of the pick up van and it is

respondent No.4, the driver of the passenger autorickshaw who

was rash and negligent and the insurer of the said vehicle also

filed the written statement denying the

allegation and

contending that the vehicle was slowly on the proper side of the

road. Respondent No.2 being the owner of the pick up van also

filed written statement admitting the involvement of the vehicle

in the accident and he also contended that vehicle was slowly

driven by respondent No.1 and both the insurer of the vehicles

made allegations against the other vehicle drivers.

- 6 -

The claimant in order to substantiate her claim, got

examined herself as PW-1 and the doctor as PW-2 and also got

marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.58. On the other hand,

respondents examined respondent No.3 before the Tribunal as

RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The

Tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence

allowed

the

claim

petition

awarding

compensation

of

Rs.4,59,000/- payable by respondents 1 and 2 to the extent of

50% and respondents 4 to 6 to the extent of 50% only along

with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by

the said judgment and award, these two appeals are filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company of

the passenger autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-34/9543

in M.F.A.No.23277/2011 would vehemently contend that even

though in the compliant allegation is made against other

offending vehicle and FIR is also filed against other offending

vehicle, the Tribunal has erroneously apportioned the negligence

at the rate of 50% each and the finding given is against the

records available on record. Even though the Investigating

Officer who is examined as RW-2 has categorically deposed that

during the course of investigation, he came to know that

- 7 -

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the other

offending vehicle and hence apportionment of 50% negligence

on the Insurance Company is erroneous. It is his further

contention that the driver of the pick up van bearing registration

No.KA-34/A-2071 was not having the valid driving licence to

drive the pick up van and hence, the very award against the

appellant is erroneous and ought to have fastened the liability in

its entirety on the other offending vehicle.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant in

M.F.A.No.103368/2015 would vehemently contend that the

Tribunal while granting compensation has taken the income of

the appellant only at Rs.3,000/- per month though the appellant

was working as tailor and earning more than that. As a r