JUDGMENT :

These appeals in M.F.A. Nos. 9234/2015, 9235/2015, 9236/2015, 9237/2015 and 9238/2015 by the K.S.R.T.C. management challenge the judgment and award dated 30.07.2015 made by M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SSCH-15) allowing M.V.C.Nos.7882/2012, M.V.C. No.7885/2012, M.V.C.No.340/2013, M.V.C.No.384/2013 and M.V.C.No.916/2013, whereby varying sums of compensation have been awarded with interest at the rate of 8% with usual conditions of bank deposit.

2. The brief facts stated are :

(a) On 03.12.2012 the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.KA-07-F-1440 and a private mini transport bus bearing registration No.KA-13 –B-4545 had a head-on collision on Hoskote –Chintamani Main Road near Karapanahalli Gate, Nandagudi Hobli. This resulted into fatal injuries to 12 persons and grievous injuries to 7. The accident resulted into multiple claim petitions being filed before different M.A.C.Ts. in Bengaluru by the L.Rs. of the deceased and by the injured. The same were resisted by the K.S.R.T.C. and by the insurer of the mini bus by filing Written Statements.

(b) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material on record, the different M.A.C.Ts. have rendered the judgments and the awards holding that the exclusive negligence lies with the K.S.R.T.C. bus driver and therefore the exclusive liability was imposed upon the K.S.R.T.C., which has put the same in challenge on the ground of composite negligence and on the ground of award of excessive compensation.

3. Learned panel counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. vehemently contends that the very same accident had resulted into multiple claim petitions being filed before different M.A.C.Ts at Bengaluru; in the impugned judgment passed by one M.A.C.T., the liability is entirely fastened on the K.S.R.T.C. whereas other M.A.C.Ts. which tried other claim petitions have apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50:50 and in two other cases in the ratio of 40:60 between the K.S.R.T.C. and the insurer of mini bus; regardless of applicability of doctrine of res judicata, imposition of varying liability on the very same vehicle does not sound logical and therefore there has to be a fair treatment of the plea of composite negligence afresh on the basis of the evidentiary material borne out by record.

4. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side and so also is the rate of interest. So arguing, the counsel seeks that the impugned judgment and awards have to be set aside as against the appellant K.S.R.T.C. holding the respondent insurer of the offending vehicle ie., the mini bus, exclusively liable. In support of his claim he banks upon the judgment dated 26.03.2018 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.7015/2015 and connected appeals that admittedly arose from the accident in question.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent insurer of the offending mini bus, per contra, submits that although these multiple claim petitions arose from one common accident, still there may be different findings by different M.A.C.Ts. in different petitions depending upon the nature, quantum and quality of evidence tendered by the parties therein, and therefore no offence is done to any principle of law and much to the principle of res judicata, more particularly, when parties are not same in each of the claim petitions. He further submits that the M.A.C.Ts. have adjudged the evidentiary material in their wisdom and have recorded the finding as to exclusive liability of the K.S.R.T.C. and the same does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants made submissions in justification of the award, although he maintained equidistance from the contentions of the K.S.R.T.C. and the insurer of the mini bus, presumably on the ground that the apportionment of liability between these two offending vehicles will not in any way prejudice the interest of the claimants, inasmuch as the liability of the tortfeas