1. The appeal in MFA No.1047/2013 by the owner of the offending vehicle and the appeal in MFA No.1198/2014 by the claimants lay a challenge to the judgment and award dated 07.12.2012 made by the MACT, Chickmagaluru, allowing MVC No. 597/2010 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- with 6% annual interest thereon has been awarded. The owner contends that the respondent-insurer ought to have been made liable. The claimants contend that the higher compensation ought to have been awarded.

2. In the vehicular accident that happened on 22.11.2006 at involving the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.KA-18-T2842 & 2843, one Mr. Vishwanatha fell down from the top of the loaded trailer and sustained fatal injuries and later, he succumbed to the same. The LRs of the deceased preferred a claim petition in MVC No.597/2010 that was stoutly opposed by the appellant owner of the vehicle and the respondent-insurer by filing separate Written Statements.

2A. To prove the claim, the first claimant Smt. Leela was examined as PW1. In her evidence, 7 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P7. These documents comprised of the charge sheet and the Post Mortem Report, amongst others. The respondent-insurer had examined its official Mr. Naveen as RW1. The owner of the offending vehicle Mr. Sunil D’Sa the appellant herein was examined as RW2. In their evidence, 6 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits as per R1 to R6. Looking to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the MACT has made the impugned judgment and award.

3. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that he had paid additional premium of Rs.25/- covering the insurance of the employees which has been admitted in the cross-examination of insurer’s witness RW1 and therefore, the MACT ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent-insurer. The learned counsel for the claimants apart from seeking fastening the liability on the insurer contends that the compensation awarded is too much on the lower side; the additions in view of Apex Court judgment in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others” in AIR 2017 SC 5157 (Pranay Sethi Case). and “Hemraj v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Case)” are required to be made to the income of the deceased and therefore, in any circumstance compensation has to be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer per contra submits that there was no relationship of employer-employee ; the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle fraudulently supported the case of the claimants before the MACT by amending the Written Statement; the additional premium of Rs.25/- was paid for enlarging the coverage of the driver himself and not other employees; the accident happened in a private coffee estate and not in public place and lastly, the tractor-trailer is not a good transport vehicle. He also opposes the claim for enhancement of compensation. So stating, the counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle/employer and learned counsel for the claimants. I have also heard the learned counsel for the insurer.

6. It is the contention of the appellant/owner of the vehicle/employer that the deceased was in his employment and that he had paid additional premium of Rs.25/- for covering the insurance of one employee and therefore the insurer is liable, gains acceptance since RW1 examined on behalf of the insurer has specifically admitted the payment of additional premium for covering one workman/employee of the insured. The contention of the insurer that this additional premium was received only for enlarging the liability in respect of the driver appears to be too farfetched in as much as driver has the statutory coverage and therefore, is not convincing.

7. The learned counsel for the insurer next contends that the employer/owner of the vehicle who had a