JUDGMENT

B V Nagarathna, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, who have appeared in person, it is heard finally.

2. The New India Assurance Company, has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chickballapur, dated 25th April, 2018, in MVC.No.1/2014. The Insurance Company is aggrieved only by the liability being fastened on it, to satisfy the judgment and award.

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

4. It is the case of the respondents claimants that on 9/2/2013, at about 8.15 p.m., Pruthviraj @ Raju was proceeding on a Hero Honda Splendor bearing Regn.No.KA-50-K-3386, as a pillion rider, on the extreme left side on N.H.7 Road, near RTO office, Chickballapur. At that time, suddenly the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-04-DD-6593 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and without observing any traffic rules and dashed to the motor cycle from behind. As a result, Pruthviraj fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body, succumbed to the same and died on the spot. The body of Pruthviraj was shifted to the District Hospital, Chickballapur, where postmortem examination was conducted and thereafter, his last rites were performed. Contending that deceased Pruthviraj was hale and healthy and was earning his livelihood as a fruit vendor, agriculturist and also doing real estate business, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, out of which, he was maintaining his family, his legal representatives filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act", for the sake of convenience), seeking compensation on account of his death. His widow, parents and minor sons of the deceased Pruthviraj contended that they had lost the bread earner of the family and were in deep shock and agony. That the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the oil tanker and in that regard, Chikkaballapur jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.37/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. According to the claimants, respondent owner and insurer of the oil tanker were liable to pay compensation and satisfy the award to be passed in the claim petition.

5. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the first respondent owner of the oil tanker did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. While second respondent insurer appeared and filed its written submission, inter alia contending that the driver of the oil tanker (a hazardous goods vehicle) was not having a valid and specific endorsement on his Driving Licence, which was in contravention of the policy conditions and also the provisions of the Act. That insurer was not liable to pay any compensation and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:-

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Pruthvi Raj @ Raju, S/o.Shankarappa, died in an accident that was taken place on 09.02.2013 at about 8.15 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.Nos.MH-04-DD-6593 on N.H. 7 Road, near RTO Office, Chickballapur District?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?"

7. In support of their case, claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.Nos.1 and 2 and produced fifteen documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15, while, respondent Insurer examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and produced four documents, which were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4.

8. On the basis of the evidence on record, Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.15,42,