P.G.M. PATIL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in both the cases.

2. The appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company and MFA CROB is filed by the claimants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.06.2012, passed by the MACT-II, Yadgiri in MVC No.19/2006.

3. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties with their ranks before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimants that on 01.09.2005 at about 11.30. p.m., the petitioners and their mother Bhagamma were proceeding in the Jeep bearing No.AP-1/T-6166 on Yadgiri-Hattikuni road and when they were so proceedings near Ganga Nagar village, the driver of the said jeep drove the same in a high speed and in the rash and negligent manner resulting that it fell down on the side of the road. The deceased Bhagamma sustained multiple grievous injuries and she died in the government hospital while under treatment. The petitioners have stated that she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she was aged about 40 years and doing coolie work and was earning Rs.100/- per day. The petitioners were depended on the income of the deceased and they have lost their bread-winner. Hence they claimed compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act.

5. In pursuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statement, denying the entire allegations made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2, insurance Company denied the liability on the ground that the deceased was a fare paid passenger in a private vehicle and therefore respondent No.1 has violated the policy and permission conditions. The driver of the vehicle was not holding effective driving license but drove the vehicle and as such he is not liable to pay compensation, on these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. Claimant No.2 was examined as PW- 1 and got marked 8 documents; respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle got himself examined as RW-1 and respondent No.2 got examined one witness as RW-2 and they have got marked three documents. The learned Member of the Tribunal after hearing all the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

7. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed MFA 32018/2012, contending that the award is arbitrary and without appreciating the evidence on record. The Tribunal has not appreciated that the risk of the occupants of the jeep in question is not covered under the policy issued and that it is a private jeep-liability only policy. Therefore, the liability should not have been saddled on the insurance company.

8. The claimants have filed MFA CROB No.200074/2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation. They have contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,500/- per month and that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation towards future prospects for assessing the loss of dependency.

9. Learned counsel for the insurance Company submitted that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle is 'Act policy' and it is a private jeep and that the deceased was inmate in the said jeep. Therefore, the risk of the inmates of the private jeep is not covered under the 'Act policy' and as such liability cannot be saddled on the insurance company. The learned counsel for the insurance company has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and Another,,2012 ILR(Kar) 1841).

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its contention even after the matter was remanded