The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable only against the owner and insurer without impleading the driver as a party. The court clarified the legal principles regarding the liability of the owner and insurer and emphasized the conditions under which the driver can be held personally liable for the compensation.

( 1 ) ADMITTED. The matter is heard finally by consent.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 10. 2. 1999 passed by the principal district judge and motor accidents claims tribunal, dharwad, in mvc No. 657 of 1996.

( 3 ) THE said claim petition was filed by the widow, mother and minor son of one subhash thakkar, a businessman who died in a motor accident on 1. 5. 94. According to the claimants, on 1. 5. 94 when the said subhash thakkar was travelling in maruti car bearing No. Ka-25-m-1606 on the poona-Bangalore road (near heggana- halli gate, sira), a lorry bearing No. Gqa 6062 came at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car; and as a consequence, the said subhash thakkar sustained injuries and subsequently died as a result of the said injuries. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed mvc No. 657 of 1996 claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000. Two others who were travelling in the said car also died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident and their lrs filed mvc nos. 654 and 656 of 1996.

( 4 ) INITIALLY, the claim petitions were filed against the four respondents, i. e. , the driver and insurer of the lorry (respondent nos. 1 and 2) and the owner and insurer of the ear (respondent nos. 3 and 4 ). Subsequently, when the claimants who were under the impression that respondent No. 1 was the owner-cum-driver of the lorry came to know that respondent No. 1 was only a driver of the lorry and not the owner, the owner of the lorry was impleaded as respondent No. 5. The claimants contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. They alternatively contended that the accident had occurred due to the composite negligence of the lorry driver and also the driver of the car. The claim petitions were resisted by the respondents.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings, tribunal framed issues on the question of (1) negligence; (2) death as a result of negligence; (3) entitlement and quantum of compensation; and (4) final order.

( 6 ) COMMON evidence was recorded in the three cases. The widow of the deceased (claimant No. 1 in mvc No. 657 of 1996) was examined as pw 3 and an eyewitness was examined as pw 2. The claimants in the other two petitions were examined as pw 1 and pw 4. Exhs. Pi to p17 were marked on behalf of the claimants in three petitions. On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition no oral evidence was let in, but the insurance policy was marked as exh. R-l.

( 7 ) ON appreciating the evidence, the tribunal, by its common judgment dated 10. 2. 1999 allowed the claim petitions in part. The tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. Gqa 6062 by its driver; that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car; that the claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased and were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 9,62,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The compensation was awarded under the following heads: (a) loss of dependency Rs. 9,27,000 (b) loss to estate Rs. 10,000 (c) loss of consortium Rs. 10,000 (d) funeral expenses Rs. 15,000

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved, the owner and insurer of the lorry (respondent nos. 5 and 2 in the claim petition) have filed this appeal, raising the following contentions: (A) the finding of the tribunal that driver of the lorry alone was negligent is erroneous and the tribunal ought to have held that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the lorry and the car and restricted the lia bility of the appellants to only 50 per cent of the amount awarded. (b) the compensation awarded is excessive as the tribunal committed an error both in regard to the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased and in selecting the appropriate multiplier. (c) the award of interest at 12 per cent per annum on the compensation amount is excess