JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in MVC No.13/2013 dated 26.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and the respondent-claimant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.1.2013 at about 9.30 a.m. petitioner was proceeding on a motor bike bearing registration No.KA.55 J.6787 along with his child and a car was proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.09 Z.6649. The driver of the said car suddenly applied the break, as a result of the same the petitioner went and dashed against the said car from behind and sustained injury to his left arm. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital and he has been operated and fixed a rod and screw. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was working as an Assistant Manager in C.F.T.R.I. Consumers Co-operative Society and he was also being an LIC agent getting an income of Rs.26,000/- per month. For having suffered injuries and for having incurred medical expenses, the petitioner has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim the compensation. 4. In response to the notice, the first respondent did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared and filed its written statement by denying the contents of the petition. Further contended that the car was insured with the respondent-insurer and the policy was in force, however, the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that there is breach of violation of conditions and a frivolous case has been filed in collusion with the police. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; (i) Whether the petitioner proves that alleged Road Traffic Accident as contended in the petition and he sustained injuries as contended in the petition? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If yes, how much and from whom? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed? 6. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If yes, how much and from whom? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed? 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and Dr.Prakash was examined as PW2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P23. On behalf of the respondents RW1 came to be examined and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R4. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the appellant-insurer is before this Court. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer that a duty is casts upon the rider of the motor cycle who is coming behind the vehicle to maintain a safe distance in order to avoid the impact of the vehicles, as per Regulation No.23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations. She further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the offending car is fully rash and negligent and the charge sheet has also been filed against the rider of the motor cycle. The said aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Tribunal. In that light, the Tribunal ought to have held that the claimant being the rider of the motor cycle has also contributed to the alleged accident. She further contended that the compensation awarded under the head of disability itself is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced. On these grounds, she prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant vehemently argued by contending that the driver of the car has pleaded guilty and by considering the said aspect the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the said car is rash and negligent and the entire liability has been fixed on the insurer of the said car. He further contended that the claimant has suffered the disability and as such Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of permanent disability. No loss of future prospects has been awarded. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities. If the said amount is recalculated, then under such circumstances the compensation awarded appears to be on the lower side. No loss of future prospects has been awarded. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities. If the said amount is recalculated, then under such circumstances the compensation awarded appears to be on the lower side. The appellant has not made out any good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and order of the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed. 9. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-insurer. 10. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has sustained fracture to his left hand and got fixed implant and taken necessary treatment, even the records also indicates that the claimant was admitted on 31.1.2013 and discharged on 3.2.2013 and thereafter again he was admitted on 24.3.2013 and discharged on 28.3.2013. In order to prove that he has suffered disability he has also got examined PW2-Dr.Prakash. According to PW2, the claimant has suffered 26% disability to the upper limb and 9% disability to the whole body. Though the said disability has been assessed, when admittedly the claimant is working as an Assistant Manager in C.F.T.R.I. Consumer Co-operative Society and also being an LIC Agent, then under such circumstances how the said disability is going to affect his service, that evidence is lacking. There is nothing to show that the claimant cannot do the job with which he was discharging as a normal person. Under the said facts and circumstances the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. 11. As could be seen from the judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, when the claimant himself has discharged the duty as a Manager and there is no future loss of income, then under such circumstances question of granting the compensation towards permanent disability is erroneous and not sustainable in law. 11. As could be seen from the judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, when the claimant himself has discharged the duty as a Manager and there is no future loss of income, then under such circumstances question of granting the compensation towards permanent disability is erroneous and not sustainable in law. However, the compensation which has been awarded under the head of permanent disability can be redistributed under the head of loss of amenities and even as per Ex.P10 it indicates that he has applied leave for six months and there will be loss of leave and the said loss of leave could have been encashed to the extent of Rs.30,000/- and in that light Rs.30,000/- can also be adjusted in this behalf. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.51,379/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort, an amount of Rs.24,000/- under the head of attendant charges, diet, food nourishment, transport and other incidental charges and an amount of Rs.30,000/- for loss of leave. In so far as the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of pain and sufferings is kept intact. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,65,379/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,65,400/- as against Rs.2,05,400/-. 12. The next contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending car is fully responsible for the alleged accident. It is an admitted fact that the car was proceeding ahead of the motor cycle and at that time the alleged accident has taken place. It is the contention of the appellant-insurer that the rider of the motor cycle has not maintained safe distance in that context alleged accident has taken place. As per the Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, it clearly indicates that whenever the vehicle is proceeding behind any other vehicle, he has to maintain the safe distance. Be that as it may. As per the Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, it clearly indicates that whenever the vehicle is proceeding behind any other vehicle, he has to maintain the safe distance. Be that as it may. As per the record Ex.R3 it clearly indicates that the rider of the motor cycle has also been charge sheeted by the police, but the said aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Tribunal while assessing the negligent part. If the said records are considered it also indicates that the rider of the motor cycle has also contributed to the alleged accident. It is true that the Tribunal can independently come to the conclusion about the rash and negligent act of the vehicles involved in the accident. Merely because a particular person is pleaded guilty, only on that ground it cannot be held that he has fully contributed to the alleged accident. When the material indicates that the rider of the motor cycle has also contributed to the alleged accident and he has been charge sheeted, then under such circumstances, the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the evidence produced clearly goes to show that the driver of the car alone has contributed to the alleged accident, is erroneous and not sustainable in law. 13. On close scrutiny of the criminal records and the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place it indicates that the rider of the motor cycle has also contributed to the alleged accident. As the alleged accident has taken place when both the vehicles are proceeding towards city side and the alleged accident has taken place in the middle of the road, that too, in the morning at 9.00 a.m., there is sufficient space for movement of the vehicle and even assuming that the driver of the car has suddenly applied the break, but there is every chance of the rider of the motor cycle to avoid the said accident. Since, it is not the case of the claimant that there was heavy traffic and he was not having any chance to avoid the said accident, then under such circumstances, it can be held that he is also responsible to the said accident. 14. Since, it is not the case of the claimant that there was heavy traffic and he was not having any chance to avoid the said accident, then under such circumstances, it can be held that he is also responsible to the said accident. 14. In the light of the discussion held by me above it can be safely held that, for having suddenly applied the break by the driver of the car, he can be held responsible to the extent of 75% and the rider of the motor cycle can be held responsible for 25% only because of the reason that the driver of the said car has not stepped into the witness box and has not deposed anything, but however the record which have been produced clearly indicates the fact that the rider of the motor cycle has also contributed to the alleged accident and in that light, he can be held responsible to the extent of 25%. 15. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the driver of the car has fully contributed, is set aside and it can be held that, he has contributed to the extent of 75% and the driver of the motor cycle has contributed to the extent of 25%. In that light, the compensation awarded to the extent of Rs.1,65,400/- has to be apportioned and the claimant is entitled to the compensation amount to the extent of 75% from the appellant-insurer and remaining 25% has to be borne by the claimant himself. 16. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mysore, in MVC No.13/2013 dated 26.3.2016 is modified as indicated above. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly and the amount in deposit may be transmitted to the Tribunal.