The matter is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.

2. The present appeal is by the owner of the vehicle, who has challenged the order of the Tribunal in MVC No.987/2003, whereby the insurer was exonerated of its liability and instead was fastened on the appellant herein, who is the owner of the vehicle.

3. The parties are referred to by their ranking before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

4. The appeal is limited to the challenge as to imposition of liability on the owner and no grievance is made as regards the quantum of award of compensation by the learned Tribunal.

5. The facts made out are that on 19.09.2003, when the deceased was proceeding to Tumakuru from Gubbi after finishing his work on his Hero Honda Bike bearing registration No.KA-06-E-7564, at about 8.00 p.m., a bus bearing registration No.KA-06-B-9069 having its name “Prakasha” collided with the Bike of the deceased. The rider of the bike R.P. Siddalingappa succumbed to the injuries and died. A claim petition came to be preferred stating that the deceased was working as a proprietor of Gajanana Earth Movers, S.V.R Enterprises and was also involved in sand business, agricultural work and real estate business and was earning more than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) per month.

6. Alleging that the accident was exclusively due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, compensation was sought. After issuance of notice on the claim petition, the Insurer-respondent No.2 appeared and filed their written statement. Apart from a bare denial of averments of the claim petition, the only defence was with respect to violation of permit which is in issue and was pleaded as follows:-

“The liability of this respondent to pay compensation depends upon the validity of the RC, FC and permit pertaining to the vehicle in question.”

7. Respondent No.1 i.e., the appellant herein filed statement of objections and had asserted that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda Vehicle. It was asserted that respondent No.2-Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation as the owner had insured his bus with respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the policy was in force and covered all risks. It was also averred at Para 9 to the effect that the bus in question had a permit to run from Chitradurga to K.B. Cross as specified in the permit and that on 19.09.2003, after the bus had arrived at K.B. Cross, as there was some repair that was to be attended to, it was taken to Tumakuru and left at H.S.V. Auto Diesel Work, B.H. Road, Tumakuru, for repair. The owner had further contended that on completion of repair work at 8.00 p.m., when the bus was returning towards K.B. Cross in order to resume its trips on the regular route, it appears that the claimants taking undue advantage of the passing of the bus in the said route have falsely implicated the bus belonging to respondent No.1 in collusion with the Gubbi Police Authorities in an alleged accident only for the purpose of claiming compensation under the policy.

8. The learned Tribunal after framing issues, took up the case for trial. The claimants led in evidence through PW-1 and PW-2 and marked police investigation records and other documents relating to repair as Ex.P.1 to P.14, while respondent No.2 led in evidence through RW.1 and got marked documents relating to the Insurance policy, RC extract and endorsement. The respondent No.1 led in evidence through the owner-RW2, owner of the work shop-RW3 and the driver of the said bus, Lokesh, RW-4.

9. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, documents marked at the time of the evidence and considering all contentions, held in the affirmative as regards the entitlement to the claim and had awarded compensation of Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. As regards the question of liability while observing that it was an admitted fact that accident had taken place at a location, which wa