1. These two Appeals are directed against one and the same judgment and award dated 24.4.2006 made in MVC No. 3568/2004 on the file of Court of small Causes/Additional MACT at Bangalore City.

2. In other words, appeal in MFA No. 10749/2006 has been filed by the Insurance Company praying that the impugned judgment and Award passed against the Insurance Company may be set aside. Appeal in MFA No. 10737/2006 has been filed by the claimants, viz., legal representatives of the deceased Murthappa alias Murthy, praying to award compensation as claimed in the claim petition in MVC No. 3568/2004 by modifying the impugned judgment and Award dated 24.04.2006.

3. Since these two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment, we have heard common arguments and proceeding to dispose of these Appeals by this common judgment.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits:

i) that the claimants are residents of Reddihalli village Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District and the motor accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Ainmangala Police Station, Chitradurga District and therefore the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation before MACT at Bangalore, was not maintainable;

ii) that the Tribunal erred in saddling the liability of the owner on the Insurance Company though the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle and the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the deceased;

iii) that the Tribunal erred in awarding exorbitant compensation.

5. He has cited the following decisions:

(i) Unreported decision dated 21.10.2011 made in W P No. 27707/2009 and connected cases (THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., VERSUS YOGESH AND ANOTHER):

(ii) ILR 2011 KAR 3513 (GOPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS SHIVASHARANAPPA AND OTHERS):

(iii) Judgment dated 19.7.2011 made in MFA No.8052/2007 a/w MFA No. 8053/2007 (M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS MOOKAMBIKA AND ANOTHER).

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company. He submits:

(i) that the Insurance Company did not raise objection that the Tribunal at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition;

(ii) that since the Insurance Company carries on business within the local limits of jurisdiction of MACT at Bangalore, it cannot be said that MACT/Additional MACT at Bangalore City, had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;

(iii) that the deceased Murthappa alias Murthy was aged about 35 years, doing agriculture and also rearing sheep and thereby earning Rs. 80,000/-p.a., and at the time of accident, the deceased was taking sheep/goat from Reddihalli to Hiriyur Santhe; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and as a result of which, 10 persons died, 15 others sustained injuries and as per spot panchanama at Ex.P4, all the 29 goats and 20 sheep died and therefore, the deceased was traveling in the lorry as owner of goods and not as a passenger, and the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation.

7. in view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties, we formulate the following points for our consideration:

(i) Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bangalore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

(ii) Whether the deceased Murthappa @ Murthy was traveling in the lorry bearing registration No. AP-02/P-3917 as owner of goods?

(iii) If answer to the above point is in the affirmative, whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry?

(iv) Whether the Compensation awarded by the tribunal is in-adequate/excess?

Point No. (i)

8. So as to answer Point No. (i), it is necessary to refer to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to Sub-Section (2) of Section 166, every application under sub-Section (1) shall be mad