JUDGMENT :

Both the appeal and the Cross-Objections are filed challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 4.3.2010 passed in MVC No.961/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge and XII Addl. MACT, Shorapur whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- in favour of the claimants towards death of one Gangappa in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2009.

2. MFA No.31002/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability to pay compensation. MFA CROB No.1044/2011 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the above appeals are as follows;

The claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased Gangappa who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2009. In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased Gangappa was the owner of the Auto bearing registration No.KA-33/6292. It was contended that on 10.05.2009 Gangappa’s father-in-law took the said vehicle on hire basis for the purpose of a marriage in the family. Accordingly, the vehicle was engaged by Gangappa’s father-in-law for the use of members of the marriage party. It was further contended that on 10.05.2009, Gangappa attended the said marriage at Badyapur and was returning to Shorapur in the aforesaid vehicle along with other members of the marriage party. It was alleged that the vehicle was being driven by its driver, Laxman s/o Basanna.

The claimants also contended that at about 9.00 p.m. on 10.05.2009 when the deceased Gangappa was returning back to Shorapur in the aforesaid vehicle as a passenger along with other members of the marriage party, the aforesaid driver Laxman drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident in which Gangappa died and the other passengers sustained injuries. It was also contended that Gangappa was employed as a driver of heavy transport vehicle in addition to doing his own auto vehicle business and consequently since he was the sole bread winner of the family, the claimants being his dependents are entitled to compensation towards his death. Putting forth these contentions, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

4. Before the Tribunal, the aforesaid driver Laxman was arrayed as respondent No.1, whereas the insurance company was arrayed as respondent No.2. While the driver did not contest the claim petition, the insurance company contested the same. Apart from other contentions, it was contended by the insurance company that since the deceased Gangappa was himself the owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6292 the question of paying compensation towards his death did not arise. Alternatively it was contended by the insurance company that assuming but not conceding that the insurance company had collected additional premium covering the liability of the deceased Gangappa who was the owner of the vehicle, the said liability was restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Under these circumstances, the insurance company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6292. The Tribunal also held that the claimants were entitled to compensation on account of the death of Gangappa in the accident. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal negatived the contention urged on behalf of the insurance company that it was not liable to pay compensation and consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim petition and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- as stated above.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for t