( 1. ) THESE three MFAs, have arisen from the same judgment and award dated 12-9-2005 passed in MVC no. 3847/1998 by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-2). The appellants in MFA No. 1503/2006 have sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded in their favour towards the death of one K. R. Keshavamurthy as a result of motor vehicle accident; MFA No. 3337/2006 is filed by Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board ('bwssb' in short)and MFA No. 295/2006 is filed by the bangalore Mahanagar Palike ('bmp' in short), challenging the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment as to liability of these appellants (respondents before the Tribunal)to pay compensation to the claimants therein jointly with Respondent No. 7 namely 'bmp' (Respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal ). Therefore, all these MFAs, are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2. ) THERE has been delay of 10 days in filing MFA No. 1503/2006 and 56 days in filing MFA No. 3337/2006 and, therefore, the respective appellants have filed their applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the said delay. Accepting the cause shown therein, the said applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.

The case of the claimants (hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) as averred in their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV act, 1988, before the Tribunal is as under :

(a) On 19-2-1998 at about 7. 10 p. m. when the deceased K. R. Keshavamurthy, who was the husband of the claimant No. 1, the father of claimant No. 2 and the son of claimant Nos. 3 and 4, was riding the Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. KA-02/1-4205 belonging to the first respondent who happened to be his brother-in-law, on Tank Bund Road in bangalore City, he could not notice the manhole that was in the middle of the road as it was unguarded and no signs were exhibited nearby it showing its the existence there. Consequently, the vehicle fell into the said manhole and he was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries to his head and other parts of the body. Though, he was taken to the hospital, immediately, he succumbed to the said injuries on the very next day of the accident i. e. on 20-2-1998.

(b) The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, respectively 'bwssb' and 'bmp' were responsible in negligently keeping the said manhole un-guarded and without putting any signboard nearby it to show its existence there. Therefore, both the said respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the claimants towards the death of the deceased. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (before the Tribunal) respectively being the owner and insurer of the said kinetic Honda are also included in the claim petition though the said accident was mainly due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd and 4th Respondent.

( 3. ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 in the claim petition filed their respective written statement, contesting it. The first Respondent being the owner of the said Kinetic Honda has contended in his written statement that he, being the relative of the deceased, permitted him to use the said vehicle and the said accident occurred while the deceased was riding the said vehicle and as such, this first Respondent is in no way responsible to the occurrence of the accident and consequent death of the deceased. The second respondent namely new India Assurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the said Kinetic Honda has also contended that since the deceased did not cause any injury to or death of any 3rd party by riding the said vehicle, it (Insurance Company) is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants towards the death of the deceased.

( 4. ) THE 3rd Respondent 'bwssb' contended that the said manhole was neither constructed by it nor was it maintained by it and the said manhole was a stored water drainage constructed and maintained by the 4th respondent 'bmp' and as such, this 3rd respondent is in no way liable to the