JUDGMENT :

1. MFA No.21440/2012 has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Hospet for the liability fastened on it, and MFA Crob No.100158/2015 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.482/2010 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (herein after referred to as Tribunal), Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, dated 27.12.2011.

2. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of the appeal and cross objection are that, on 17.05.2010 one Manju Naik and others were traveling in tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA.35.M.2867.T.2719 from Kamalapur to Hospet road. The said tractor driven by respondent No.1. When the tractor reached near Ganesh Temple, another tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA.35.T.6015/6016 came in a high speed, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor and trailer and thereby dashed to the tractor and trailer in which the deceased Manju Naik was traveling. On account of the said accident, both the tractor and trailer toppled down and said Manju Naik suffered grievous injuries and admitted to the Government hospital for treatment. He was later shifted to VIMS Ballari. Subsequently the injured succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

3. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation. It is contended that untimely death of their bread earner, the wife, children and parents of the deceased have suffered irreparable loss. The claimants contended that, they have spent a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards funeral expenses. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was doing agricultural work and milk vending business. He was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. He was the only bread earner of the family. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos.1 and 4. Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6 are the owners of the said two vehicles. Respondent Nos.3 and 7 are being Insurer of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.16,10,000/-

4. The Tribunal after registering the case, issued notice to the respondents. Petition against respondent No.5 has been dismissed and remaining respondents have appeared through their counsel and have filed their objections.

5. The first respondent has denied that he is negligent. He further contended that compensation, if any, respondent No.3-Insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Respondent No.3 has denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA.M.2867.T.2719. He further contended that respondent No.2 being the owner of the said vehicle has to produce necessary documents. The respondent No.1-the driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No.4. Therefore, owner and driver of the said vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent No.4 filed his objections and denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and contended that respondent No.7 has to pay the compensation.

7. Respondent No.6 has adopted the objections of respondent No.4. Respondent No.7 also has denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. He has denied the amount spent for funeral expenses. Police authority have wrongly filed the charge sheet against respondent No.4. He further contended that respondent No.4 did not have valid driving license. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition filed against him.

8. On the basis of above said facts, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

Any Other Langu