B.S. Indrakala, J.—MFA Nos. 15186/2007 and 15187/2007 are preferred by the claimants and MFA Nos. 1875 and 1876/2008 are preferred by the insurance company against the common impugned judgment and award, dated 30.7.2007 passed in MVC Nos. 8601 and 8602/2005 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT., Metropolitian area, Bangalore (SCCH No. 18). The brief facts of the case areas hereunder:

It is alleged by the claimants that they sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.12.2005 at about 12.30 p.m. on Hosur Main Road, near Shanimahatma Temple, Naganathapura Junction by the user of Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA 06 A 6273 on account of the rash driving of the same by its driver and in the said accident, they suffered grievous injuries. Further it is contended by the claimants that on account of the injuries suffered by them in the said accident, they took treatment as inpatient in the hospital; they also underwent follow up treatment; prior to the accident they were hale and healthy and earning moderate income and they have sustained pecuniary loss and disability and that they have to give up their amenities and enjoyment of life throughout and in the circumstances, they have sought for awarding of compensation in their respective claim petition.

2. In the statement of objections filed by the insurer/respondent No. 1 therein, amongst other pleas, it is pleaded denying the cause of accident, nature of injuries suffered, amount of expenditure incurred, disabilities which are alleged to have been suffered etc. Further it is pleaded that though the vehicle in question is covered under the valid insurance policy, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions therein. Further it is specifically pleaded that the driver of the Tata Sumo alleged to be involved in the accident did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the same and it is also stated that in the charge sheet filed against the said driver, he is charge sheeted for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act also.

3. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

i) Whether the petitioners prove that they have sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that was taken place on 12.12.2005, at about 12.30 P.M., on Hosur Main Road, near Shanimahatma Temple, Naganathapura Junction, due to user of Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 06 A 6273, being driven by its driver in an actionable negligence?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, whether it is against whom?

iii) What Order?

4. Subsequently the claimants in both cases chose to adduce evidence and got themselves examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 apart from examining the medical officer, who assessed their disability as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 25. On behalf of the respondents, except cross examining the witnesses, they have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.

5. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence so placed on record, deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- and Rs. 2,10,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and held both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants.

6. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and award, the claimants preferred MFA N. 15186/2007 and 15187/2007 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded. At the same time, the respondent/insurance company also preferred two appeals i.e., MFA 1875/2008 and 1876/2008 interalia contending amongst other grounds that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the insurance company; Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits a person from driving a transport vehicle under the age of 20 years; and as per the records, the charge sheeted driver was aged only 19 years as on the date of accident. Further it is pleaded that the driver