The court emphasized the right of siblings and sister-in-law to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and upheld the principle of joint and several liability in awarding compensation.

JUDGMENT :

K. Nagarathna, J.

1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award dated 26/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore [hereinafter, referred to as the "Tribunal"], in MVC.No.4636/2014. By the said judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,10,899/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

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

3. Respondents - claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of M.S.Ananda Prasad, in a road traffic accident.

4. According to the claimants, M.S.Ananda Prasad was the brother of claimants No.1 to 3 and brother-in-law of claimant No.4. That they were all financially depending upon the deceased M.S.Ananda Prasad. On 11/11/2010 at about 4.00 p.m. M.S.Ananda Prasad, was proceeding towards Medithambihalli bus stop on NH-4, Kolar Taluk and District on the footpath. At that time, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1360 came from Kolar side in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations and came towards the wrong side on the footpath and dashed against M.S.Ananda Prasad, as a result, he was knocked down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, M.S.Ananda Prasad was a healthy person, working as a Lecturer in Government PC College at Vemagal, Kolar Taluk, drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. He was contributing his entire income towards maintenance of his family. That on account of the accident, family has suffered deep mental shock and agony. That a case was registered in the Kolar Rural Police Station against the driver of the KSRTC bus in Crime No.373/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(a) of IPC, claiming compensation on various heads.

5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the Corporation i.e., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the vehicle and appellant herein, appeared and filed their separate written statements. The Corporation in its written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the bus was proceeding towards Tirupathi from Bangalore on its scheduled trip carefully and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations and the deceased without observing the traffic rules was trying to cross the road and after seeing the bus he suddenly turned back but got injured and as a result, the bus hit him. That Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. That the claimants had earlier filed two more claim petitions and therefore, the present claim petition was not maintainable.

6. Respondent No.2 - Insurer of the vehicle filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition by contending that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. That the deceased himself was negligent in crossing the road without noticing the bus which was coming on the road and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:-

"1. Whether the petitioners proves that deceased M.S.Anandaprasad died in a road traffic accident on 11-11-2010 at about 4.00 p.m., at Medithambihalli gate, on NH-4 road, Kolar taluk and district, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07-F-1360?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?

3.What Order or Award?"

8. In support of their case, claimants examined four witnesses and produced 18 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. On