H. Billappa, J.—These appeals arise out of the accident that occurred on 5-12-2006, at about 12.00 noon, on Highway No. 17, on account of the collusion between Santro Car bearing No. MH-09-AB-6460 and Mahindra Goods Jeep bearing No. MH-08-H-6527. Therefore, they are considered together and disposed of by this common judgment. MFA No. 21198 of 2011 has been filed by the owner of the Santro Car bearing No. MH-09-AB-6460 challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 613 of 2007.

2. MFA No. 25914 of 2011 has been filed by the claimants in MVC No. 3208 of 2006 seeking enhancement.

3. MFA Nos. 25345 to 25347 of 2011 have been filed by the insurer of the jeep bearing No. MH-08-H-6257.

4. There is delay of 566 days in filing MFA No. 21198 of 2011. Therefore, I.A. No. 3 of 2012 has been filed by the appellants praying to condone the delay. The delay is explained saying that the appellant was not aware of MVC No. 613 of 2007. It is only during the pendency of MVC No. 3208 of 2006, the appellant came to about MVC No. 613 of 2007 and therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal.

5. The insurer of the jeep has opposed the application contending that the delay has not been properly explained.

6. There are conflicting views in respect of the same accident. Therefore, the matter needs to be considered on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice we consider it proper to allow I.A. No. 3 and condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3 of 2012 is allowed and the delay of 566 days in filing MFA No. 21198 of 2011 is condoned.

7. Briefly stated the facts are: That on 5-12-2006, the claimant in MVC No. 613 of 2007, the claimant in MVC No. 545 of 2007 and the claimant MVC No. 821 of 2007 along with deceased Amarlal Singhani, the owner of Santro Car, were travelling from Belgaum to Goa. When the car came near the place of accident, at about 12.10 hours, a Mahindra Goods Jeep bearing No. MH-08-H-6527 came from the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the car. As a result of that, the inmates of the car sustained injuries and Amarlal Singhani died at the spot. The claimants in MVC No. 3208 of 2006 who are the L.Rs of the deceased Amarlal Singhani claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The inmates of the car have filed MVC Nos. 613, 545 and 821 of 2007. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 71,000/- in MVC No. 613 of 2007 holding that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the accident. In MVC No. 545 of 2007 a sum of Rs. 91,000/-, in MVC No. 821 of 2007 a sum of Rs. 18,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation has been awarded holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and liability has been fastened on the owners and insurers of the car and also the jeep. Aggrieved by that, the owner of the car has filed MFA No. 21198 of 2011. The claimants in MVC No. 3208 of 2006 have filed MFA No. 25914 of 2011. The insurer of the jeep has filed MFA Nos. 25345 to 25347 of 2011.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellants in MFA No. 21198 of 2011 and MFA No. 25914 of 2011 submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 613 of 2007 is totally incorrect and contrary to the evidence on record. Further they submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. They also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 3208 of 2006 is inadequate and needs to be enhanced. They also submitted that the deceased Amarlal Singhani was a businessman and an income tax assessee and inspite of that, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,00,000/- p.a. which is totally incorrect. Therefore, they submit that the impugned judgment and award in MVC Nos. 613 of 2007 and 3208 of 2006 needs to be modified.

9. As against this, the learned Counsel for the insurer of the jeep submitted that the Tribunal in MVC No. 613 of 2007 has held that the driver of the car was solely