1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, in MVC No.390 of 2010.

2. Heard. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. The facts leading to the case are that on 15.03.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. one Hanumanthappa and members of his family were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA.27/A-1891 from Kuppelur to Kodiyal Hospeth for Darshan of Lord Durgadevi. When the said auto was so proceeding on Kuppelur-Holeanveri road, the driver drove the autorickshaw rashly and negligently and when it came near Lingadahalli cross, he lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle went into a pothole and then dashed against a dog and then went to left side of the road and toppled down. As a result of the said impact, Hanumanthappa sustained grievous injuries and on the way to Government Hospital, Ranebennur, he succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that after the post mortem, they took the dead body to their native place by hiring a vehicle and spent Rs.30,000/- for performing the funeral and final obsequies. It was further contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Because of the sudden death of Hanumanthappa, they have lost the bread earner and as such the wife, daughters, son and father of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short).

In pursuance of the notice, the respondents appeared and filed statement of objections. Respondent No.1, by denying the contents of the petition, contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Respondent No.2 in its objections denied the contents of the petition. It is contended that the alleged accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It is contended that the said vehicle had plied out of the territorial area and as such there is breach of policy condition, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident on 15.03.2010 and died as stated in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum and from whom?

3. What order or Award?

The petitioners, in order to prove their case, got examined petitioner No.4 as PW-1 and one more witness came to be examined as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. On behalf of the respondents, official of the insurer was examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3.

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties to the lis, passed the impugned judgment and award, awarding compensation of Rs.7,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But however, directed the second respondent to deposit the compensation with interest.

Assailing the aforesaid judgment and award, the insurer is before this Court.

4. I have heard Sri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6- claimants.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has misapplied the law and the decision of the Apex Court and thereby by violating the existing law, has fastened the li