The main legal point established is that the insurer is liable to pay compensation in a motor accident claim, even if the vehicle did not have a permit at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. PATIL, J.

1. The Insurer and the claimants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.1240 of 2012 by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari (for short the 'Tribunal') have filed these appeals.

2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of deceased-Hussain Peera, who died in the accident which occurred on 14.10.2012 at about 10.00 p.m. in between the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01/8002 and Nandini Milk Van bearing Registration No.KA- 35/5287. The deceased was working as cleaner in the said Nandini Milk Van. The lorry stated above was parked in the middle of the road and the Nandini Milk Van dashed to the hind portion of the said lorry, due to the said accident the deceased-Hussain Peera sustained injuries all over his body and died at the spot. The deceased was young, hale and healthy, aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he was getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of deceased, the petitioners and their family members suffered physically, mentally and financially. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- against the owner and insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

3. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 have appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statements. The other respondents have not filed their written statements and respondent Nos.3 and 6 have specifically contended that the allegations made by the petitioners in the petition are denied and petitioners have to be put to strict proof, the compensation claimed by them is excessive and highly exorbitant. However, they have admitted the policy issued to both the vehicles. Respondent No.3 further contended that the police have filed charge sheet against the respondent No.4-driver of the Nandini Milk Van. There is a contributory negligence between both the drivers. Respondent No.4 filed written statement sought for dismissal of the claim petition and he denied that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Accident was due to parking of the lorry without parking lights in the middle of the road.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Tribunal framed issues. In support of the claim petition, claimant-petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked ten documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P-10. On the other hand, respondents examined three witnesses as R.W-1 to R.W-3 and got marked six documents.

5. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned Judgment awarding compensation amount of Rs.5,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal further held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount equally. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 6 were directed to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.

6. The 6th respondent-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment has filed M.F.A.No.103020 of 2015 on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error of law and facts in making the appellant to pay 50% of the liability in favour of the respondents ignoring the provisions of Sections 149(2) and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the insured vehicle was charge sheeted for driving the vehicle without possessing the permit. Hence, the Judgment against him requires to be set aside. It is further contended that there was no permit for the vehicle and the same is proved by producing documents at Ex.R-1 and 2 and by examination of R.W.-1 and 2.

7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Award have filed M.F.A.No.103413 of 2015 for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the income of the deceased was considered on the lower side and that the Tribunal has applied multiplier at 14 taking the age of mother of the deceased instead of taking the age