S. SUJATHA, J.

1. Appeals are filed by the Insurer challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bellary (‘Tribunal’ for short), in MVC Nos. 548-550/2010. Cross Objections are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Since these appeals arise from the same accident and against the common Judgment, all the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

IN MFA No. 21473/2011 connected with MFA CROB. No. 100116/2014:

3. Briefly stated the facts are: that the respondents 1 and 2 – parents of the deceased Mariyamma @ Maremma instituted a claim petition alleging that on 16.1.2010, when the deceased along with the appellant No. 2 and others was standing on the proper side of the road, the respondent No. 1 being driver of the tractor bearing temporary registration No. KA 36/T 2269 (offending vehicle) drove the same in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting in the death of said Mariyamma @ Maremma who was aged about four years. The Insurer resisted the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the Insurer is before this Court challenging the impugned Judgment on two folds. firstly, on liability whereby it is contended that seven years old boy by name Balaji was at the steering wheel of the offending vehicle; that the driver-respondent No. 3 had parked the offending vehicle and had left the place without removing its ignition key; that the said minor boy while playing entered into the offending vehicle and started the vehicle as a result, the vehicle moved further and dashed to the pedestrians which resulted in violation of a specified condition of the policy in regard to driving of the vehicle by not duly authorized driver and hence the appellant was not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 – owner in respect of any claim arising out of the said accident. Secondly, on quantum, learned Counsel placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RESHMA KUMARI & OTHERS v. MADAN MOHAN & ANOTHER reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the minor, aged about four is not in conformity with the Judgment of the Apex Court in RESHMA KUMARI’s case (supra). In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments:-

(a) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA AND OTHERS reported in 2009 (1) T.A.C. 364 (S.C.)

(b) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. SUJATA ARORA AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 29 (SC).

(c) THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SMT. KASHIBAI AND OTHERS in MFA No. 30987/2013 (DD 18.4.2016)

(d) RESHMA KUMARI & OTHERS v. MADAN MOHAN & ANOTHER reported in 2013 ACJ 1253

(e) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT. SUNANDA AND OTHERS in MFA No. 23071/2012 (DD 22.1.2013)

(f) KAUSHLYA DEVI v. SHRI KARAN ARORA AND OTHERS reported in CDJ 2007 SC 596

(g) SOMASHEKAR CHIDANAND BADIGER AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERS in W.P. No. 67159/2010 (DD 20.2.2015)

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants justifying the impugned Judgment and Award would contend that the owner had engaged a duly licenced person as driver and handed over the offending vehicle in his charge. Any default committed by the said duly licenced driver in leaving ignition key in the offending vehicle, whereby the minor child without knowledge or consent of the owner had driven the offending vehicle not amount to breach of insurance policy. The Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner.

5. However, learned Counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and in identical cases involving death of a minor child, the Hon’ble Supreme Court