In claim petitions filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, involving multiple vehicles, it is not necessary to implead the owners and insurers of both vehicles as respondents, especially in cases of composite negligence.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

2. These three appeals are filed by the claimants assailing the judgment in MVC.No.119/2014 C/w. MVC.Nos.120/2014 and 117/2014 filed under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petitions on 12/07/2016 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of brevity).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The injured claimant in MVC.No.117/2014 Shivamurthy @ Murthappa, deceased Smt.Kariyamma, M.R.Thippeswamy and others were traveling from Malenahalli to Bangalore City in Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA-16/B-2572, when they were near Kora Village Bus Stand, Tumkur Taluk and District, a lorry bearing registration No.RJ-27/G-9242 was proceeding in front of their vehicle. According to the claimants, the lorry without any signal and indication or following the traffic rules suddenly stopped in the middle of the road. As a result, the Maruthi Omni van dashed against the lorry resulting in Shivamurthy sustaining grievous injuries, he was taken to District Hospital, Tumkur and later to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, where he spent a huge amount towards his medical expenses. Contending that he has sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries in the accident, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads.

5. The claimants in MVC.No.120/2014 are the legal representatives of deceased M.R. Thippeswamy @ Thippanna, also one of the inmates of the Maruthi Omni Van, who had claimed compensation on account of death of M.R. Thippeswamy by filing the said claim petition. MVC.No.119/2014 is filed by M.R.Krishnappa seeking compensation on account of death of Smt.Kariyamma. All the three cases were clubbed together by Tribunal.

6. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 being the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the lorry appeared and filed their respective written statements. Respondent No.1 denied the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver of the lorry was not at all negligent in driving the said lorry. That the entire negligence was on account of the driver of Maruthi Omni Van. That the claim petitions were without any merit and the same may be dismissed. Alternatively, it was contended that in the event the Tribunal is to award any compensation, then respondent No.1 would be indemnified by respondent No.2/insurer of the lorry. The insurance company also filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni Van and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was further contended that the petitions were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the owner as well as insurer of the Maruthi Omni had also to be arrayed as respondents in the petitions. Insurance company has also sought for dismissal of the petitions.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues in each of the claim petitions:

ISSUES IN MVC.NO.119/2014

(i) Whether the petitioners prove that, Smt.Kariamma W/o.Late B.Rangappa, died in a road traffic accident on 01/08/2011 at about 7.45 p.m., Kora Bus stand, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.RJ-27/G-9242 by its driver?

(ii) Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

(iv) What order or award?

ISSUES IN MVC.NO.120/2014

(i) Whether the petitioner proves tha