1. As aforestated, claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The facts leading to these claim petitions are as follows:-

On 04.07.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., deceased Ramesh Naidu was driving car bearing No.AP-03/C-6116 from Mulabagal to Palamner. When he was proceeding on N.H-4 near Vaddahalli, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06/F-144 came from opposite direction and dashed against the car, as a result, the driver of car namely deceased Ramesh Naidu and his father Munirathnam Naidu and his mother Savithramma succumbed to injuries. The daughter of Ramesh Naidu namely Thejeshwari (claimant in MVC No.2229/2008) suffered injuries.

3. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice that Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended to facilitate the claimants/victims of accident to file claim petitions before the tribunal within whose jurisdiction they reside. The amendment was brought into effect to mitigate hardship to the claimants but, the claimants in the instant cases have chosen the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore to mitigate hardship to KSRTC because claimants have option to file the claim petition before the tribunal in whose jurisdiction defendant resides. The deceased persons and injured claimants are the members of joint family, yet, the claim petitions were decided before different tribunals. The claimants should have sought for consolidation of claim petitions for decision by a common judgment. These claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal, rightly has not called upon the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06/F-144.

4. Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for KSRTC would submit that, the entire investigation would reveal that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-03/C-6116 by deceased Ramesh Naidu. The deceased had driven the car to its extreme right and dashed against the KSRTC bus which was coming on proper side of the road.

Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for KSRTC would further submit that notwithstanding the fact that claim petitions were filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal should have considered evidence adduced by respondent/KSRTC to hold that deceased Ramesh Naidu himself was guilty of rash and negligent driving.

5. Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for claimants would submit that claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is a special piece of legislation, meant to mitigate the hardship of prolonged litigation. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly decided the claim petitions by dispensing with the proof of actionable negligence by claimants.

6. In order to resolve this controversy, it will be useful to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2012 ACJ 1 (in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., -vs- Sinitha and others) wherein, the Supreme Court has held:-

"16. At the instant juncture, it is also necessary to reiterate a conclusion already drawn above, namely, that Section 163A of the Act has an overriding effect on all other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Stated in other words, none of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which is in conflict with Section 163A of the Act will negate the mandate contained therein (in Section 163A of the Act). Therefore, no matter what, Section 163A of the Act shall stand on its own, without being diluted by any provision. Furthermore, in the course of our determination including the inferences and conclusions drawn by us from the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala2001 ACJ 827 (SC), as also the statutory provisions dealt with by this Court in its aforesaid determination, we are of the view, that there is no basis for inferring that Section 163A of the Act is founded under the 'no-fault' liability principle. Additionally, we have concluded herein above, that