RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) COMMON questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making, hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals, though listed for admission, are clubbed together finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) M. F. A. NO. 5490/2005 and M. F. A. 5489/2005 are preferred by the insured owner of the offending motor vehicle, calling in question the common judgment and award dated 22-03-2005 in m. V. C. Nos. 2213/2000 and M. V. C. No. 1508/1998 on the file of the prl. District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (for short 'mact' ).

( 3 ) M. F. A. 314/2006 is instituted by the claimant-injured dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 47,000/- and interest at 6% per annum as compensation for personal injuries, by judgment and award dated 22-03-2005 in M. V. C. No. 2213/2000 on the file of the MACT.

( 4 ) THE motor vehicle being a bus bearing Certificate of registration No. KA-19/3619 owned by the appellant in m. F. A. No. 5490 and 5489/2005 and insured by the 1st respondent united India Insurance Company Limited, driven in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident on 25-04-1998 at about 10. 15 p. m. near yeyyadi Bus stop, due to which one Naveen Kulal succumbed to grievous injury and another Sunil Shetty, the appellant in m. F. A. No. 314/2006 sustained grievous injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased, instituted a Claim Petition in M. V. C. No. 1508/1998 and the injured-claimant instituted M. V. C. No. 2213/2000. The insurer and the insured on notice, entered appearance and filed their respective statement of objections. The insured denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and contended that the vehicle was entrusted to one Shankar Poojary holding a valid driving licence while denying the claim as excessive and exorbitant. In addition, it was contended that as the offending vehicle was insured, it is the insurer who is liable to reimburse the compensation. The insurer, in its defence raised the plea that the offending motor vehicle was driven by one shankar Kulal, a cleaner of the bus without a valid driving licence to drive the bus or any other vehicle and that therefore the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, disentitling the insured to an indemnity. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed the following issues:

" (1) Whether in each case the petitioners/ petitioner prove/s that the alleged accident which occurred on 25-4-1998 at about 10. 15 p. m. near yeyyadi bus stop was due to rash or negligent driving of the city bus bearing registration no. KA 19 3619 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners inmvcno. 1508/ 1998 prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased Naveen Kulal and they are entitled to be compensated? If so, for what amount? (3) Whether the petitioner in MVCNo. 2213/ 2000 proves that he sustained injuries in the accident in question? If so, for what amount? (4) Whether the respondent-insurance company proves that the cleaner of the bus bearing registration No. KA 19 3619 was driving the said bus at the time of accident without possessing valid driving licence, thereby the owner of the bus has violated the terms and conditions incorporated in the policy? And if so, whether the insurance company is absolved from its liability to reimburse the owner of the bus? 5) Which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation awarded in the case? 6) What order?"

( 5 ) BEFORE the MACT, one of the claimants in M. V. C. No. 1508/ 1998 by name Smt. Saroja examined herself as PW-1, produced 15 documents marked as Exhibits P-l to P-15 while the Power of attorney Holder of the claimant in M. V. C. No. 2213/2000 was examined as PW-1 and 7 documents Exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked. For the respondent - Insurance Company, the Insurer, no oral evidence was adduced but two documents Exhibits R-1 and R-2 were marked. The i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document