The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of appeals by the owner and insurer of the vehicle causing the accident, based on the active contest by the owner and the insurer's permission to contest the claim.

( 1 ) M. F. A. No. 3535 of 1999 and Cross-objection No. 28 of 2000 arise from M. V. C. No. 1768 of 1998, on the file of Addl. M. A. C. T. , Saundatti. M. F. A. No. 3536 of 1999 and Cross-objection No. 29 of 2000 arise from m. V. C. No. 1769 of 1988. They relate to the same accident and involve common questions. Appeals are filed by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the cross-objections are filed by the claimants. For convenience the appellants will also be referred to as the owner and insurer. The cross-objectors will also be referred to as claimants or by name.

( 2 ) THE respective claimant in the two claim petitions (Mahantesh B. Hanashi and Ashok Baligar) alleged that on 31. 8. 98 when Mahantesh was proceeding on scooter bearing registration No. CTB 6243 from ugargol to Saundatti, it developed some snag; therefore, he got down and along with one Ashok Baligar started pushing the scooter towards Yellamma Gudda; that at that time a Tempo Trax bearing registration No. GA 02-C 5310, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction at a great speed; and its driver lost control of the said vehicle and dashed against Mahantesh and Ashok and the scooter; that as a result, both of them sustained grievous multiple injuries and were hospitalized and underwent treatment. Hence, they filed the said claim petitions against the owner and insurer of the tempo Trax vehicle. Facts in M. F. A. No. 3535 of 1999 with cross-objection No. 28 of 2000 (from m. V. C. No. 1768 of 1998)

( 3 ) MAHANTESH filed M. V. C. No. 1768 of 1998 seeking compensation amount of rs. 19,50,000, subsequently increased by amendment to Rs. 29,50,000. 3. 2. Owner and insurer filed separate objections, by engaging different counsel. They denied negligence on the part of the tempo Trax driver and contended that the compensation sought was excessive. The tribunal framed appropriate issues regarding negligence, entitlement and quantum of compensation. 3. 3. Dr. M. C. Bellad was examined as pw 1. The claimant was examined as PW 2. The attendant, who served the claimant while he was in hospital, was examined as pw 3. The claimant got marked Exhs. P-l to P-21. On behalf of the appellants, no witness was examined, but the copy of the insurance policy was marked as Exh. P-l. 3. 4. On appreciation of evidence, the tribunal by its judgment and award dated 17. 4. 1999, allowed the claim petition in part, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo Trax by its driver. It held that the claimant had sustained serious injuries in the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,49,550 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the owner and the insurer of the Tempo Trax have jointly filed M. F. A. No. 3535 of 1999 contending that the compensation awarded is excessive. In particular, the determination of the monthly income, percentage of disability and loss of future earnings, are seriously challenged. The findings regarding negligence are not challenged. 3. 6. Mahantesh filed Cross-objection no. 28 of 2000 contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate; and that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the disability as only 80 per cent, instead of 100 per cent, as opined by the doctor. The claimant also raised a preliminary objection to the appeal, contending that an appeal by the owner and insurer challenging only the quantum of compensation, is not maintainable. Facts in M. F. A. No. 3536 of 1999 with cross-objection No. 29 of 2000 (from m. V. C. No. 1769 of 1998)

( 4 ) ASHOK Baligar filed M. V. C. No. 1769 of 1998 claiming a compensation of rs. 9,00,000. 4. 2. Owner and insurer filed separate objections, by engaging different counsel. They denied negligence on the part of the tempo Trax driver and contended that the compensation sought was excessive. The tribunal framed appropriate is