( 1 ) THE insurer New india Assurance Co. Ltd. has questioned the common judgment and award of the claims Tribunal passed in M. V. C. Nos. 635, 1148 and 609 of 1991 in so far as it relates to the liability whereas the wife, sons and mother of the deceased Pushparaj in M. V. C. No. 635 of 1991 being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 2,13,000 preferred M. F. A. No. 1731 of 1994.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: that on 1. 2. 1991 at about 9. 10 a. m. the deceased Muniswamy in M. V. C. No. 609 of 1991, the deceased S. Pushparaj in v. C. No. 635 of 1991 and another injured revanna in M. V. C. No. 1148 of 1991 were waiting for the traffic signal at the intersection of Magadi Road and west of chord Road to proceed towards Kamakshipalya on their respective vehicles. While they were so waiting for the traffic signal, that a lorry bearing registration No. CNX 5337 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them as a result Muniswamy who was sitting on the TVS 50, Pushparaj who was on his Luna bearing registration No. CAQ 6806 succumbed to injuries, whereas Revanna was able to save his life sustaining some injuries. On account of the death of k. P. Muniswamy, his wife, son, daughters and mother presented a claim petition m. V. C. No. 609 of 1991 whereas the wife, daughter, sons and mother of the deceased pushparaj filed claim petition in M. V. C. No. 635 of 1991 and the injured Revanna filed claim petition in M. V. C. No. 1148 of 1991 for award of compensation respectively.

( 3 ) THE owner of the vehicle respondent no. 1, B. V. Paramesh filed common objections statement stating that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident to absolve his liability whereas the insurer filed the objections statement disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It has, however, admitted the policy covering for the period 9. 4. 1990 to 8. 4. 1991 and contended that the driver had no effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and, therefore, not liable to pay the compensation and the driver had only driving licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle or heavy motor vehicle. Therefore, prayed to absolve its liability.

( 4 ) ALL the claim petitions were clubbed together. The claimants have examined pws 1 to 5 and marked Exhs. P-1 to P-21 whereas the owner and the insurer did not choose to lead any evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the Claims tribunal had awarded a compensation of rs. 2,13,000 in M. V. C. No. 609 of 1991, a sum of Rs. 2,13,000 in M. V. C. No. 635 of 1991 and in the case of injured in M. V. C. No. 1148 of 1991, awarded Rs. 30,000 fastening the liability jointly and severally on the owner and insurer. The insurer alone has questioned the liability on the ground that the driver did not possess any valid driving licence whereas the wife and children of the deceased Pushparaj in m. V. C. No. 635 of 1991 have sought for enhancement of compensation. Hence, all these appeals.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant insurance company vehemently contended that the award of the Claims Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurer is not sustainable as the vehicle involved in the accident is a heavy goods vehicle, whereas the driver did not possess valid driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. On this ground, he prayed to absolve the liability of the insurance company whereas on the other hand, the learned counsel representing the claimants vehemently contended that there is no legal bar as such for a person holding driving licence to drive heavy passenger motor vehicle to drive the heavy goods vehicle as the unladen weight of both the vehicles exceeds 12,000 kg. It is secondly contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 2,13,000 awarded on account of the death of Pushparaj is also very low and inadequate. Accordingly, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions, the points for