( 1 ) THE appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 23. 11. 1996 passed in MVC No. 1183 of 1991 granting a total compensation of rs. 1,55,226. 55 to the respondents for the death of one Ganesha Sheregara who was a passenger in K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. KA-01-F-12 bound from Udupi towards bangalore.

( 2 ) WHEN the said bus was proceeding after Katapady, a lorry bearing registration no. CTW 5451 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the hind portion of the bus wherein the deceased, on account of the impact, sustained grievous injuries such as head injury, severe and grievous multiple injuries and fractures as mentioned in column 11 of the petition. Subsequently, the injured passenger was shifted to the hospital for medical aid and as such while he was taking treatment succumbed to the injuries on 15. 9. 91. Hence the petition was filed by the respondents and has been decided by the M. A. C. T. , udupi.

( 3 ) FOR the respondents, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exhs. P1 to P13 are marked. For the appellants, only one witness is examined, namely, DW 1 and one document Exh. D1 is marked. The Tribunal ultimately held that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry the accident took place and further relied upon the evidence of PW 1. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal is as follows:

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. S. Sripathy, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dabali, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The argument of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned counsel for the appellants, is two fold: (1) That the compensation awarded is on the higher side; (2) That the compensation awarded under no fault liability is no fault liability and under any circumstance, if the owner of any other vehicle had already shared no fault liability, the appellant No. 1 cannot now be directed to refund that amount.

( 5 ) AS far as dependency is concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal found that the deceased was able to contribute rs. 650 towards the respondents. So for one year, it comes to Rs. 7,800. The next question that crops up is the multiplier. The respondent No. 1 is the mother. The respondent No. 2 is the brother and respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased. Since the mother was 51 years old and since the deceased was unmarried, the multiplier that could be applied is only 12. Hence the loss of dependency comes to rs. 93,000.

( 6 ) IT is also in the evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries later on. The treatment was given in Manipal hospital which is admittedly a private hospital. Naturally, the respondents must have spent some amount towards medical expenses. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to award the following compensation:

( 7 ) THE main contention of Mr. Yoganarasimha, the learned counsel for the appellants is that on no fault liability, the k. S. R. T. C. has also to be made liable to pay the sum of Rs. 12,500. As such, the k. S. R. T. C. should be estopped from contending that it should get back its money contributed under no fault liability.

( 8 ) IT is pertinent to note that the benefit of section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Act') is to facilitate the claimants to get some amount quickly pending disposal of the main petition. In other words the intro duction of this no fault liability is to help the bereaved family to get some quick payment. But at the time of the disposal of the application under section 140, it is not possible for the Tribunal to make a detailed enquiry as to the negligence and the liability in case of more than one vehicle being involved. Pending finding on the point of negligence and liability, the Tribunal for the sake of convenience, has passed the order calling upon both the owners to share the liability. But this does not mean that the owner of the vehicle who is not finally liable