JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - M.F.A.No.183/2010 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 27.10.2009, passed in M.V.C.No.34/2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court, KGF ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. M.F.A.No.6743/2011 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 31.05.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.7/2010, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, KGF ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the maintainability of the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and granting compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

3. These two appeals are arising out of the same accident, which took place on 20.9.2006. Hence, both the appeals are taken up for common disposal, even though the judgment and award are distinct.

4. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

5. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants in M.V.C.No.7/2010 are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh Babu @ Auto Babu. The claimant in M.V.C.No.34/2006 is the claimant, who suffered the injury in the accident. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 20.9.2006, the deceased Ramesh Babu and the claimant Murali had been to Bengaluru for their personal work and while returning to KGF from Bengaluru in a auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-02/4424, the injured traveled as a passenger along with the deceased Ramesh Babu. The said vehicle was driven by Auto Babu. At about 11.30 p.m., they reached a place in between Hudukula Gate - Basaveshwara Solvents on Kolar Bangarpet Main Road. At that time, the said auto rickshaw came to repair. Ramesh Babu, the driver of the auto rickshaw stopped the auto rickshaw on the left side of the road and got down of the auto rickshaw and he was repairing the same. He instructed the claimant/injured to put the torch at the backside of the auto rickshaw so as to help him in repairing the auto rickshaw. At that time, an unknown 407 tempo came from Kolar side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the injured/claimant and so also the driver of the auto rickshaw. Due to the said impact, both of them sustained injuries and the injured Ramesh Babu succumbed to the injuries. The other claimant sustained injuries and he took treatment by spending huge money.

6. In both the claim petitions, notices were issued against the respondents. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions and denied the very accident. It also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw and the entire negligence is of the unknown tempo. The vehicle was also not having valid permit to drive outside Bengaluru i.e., to drive the vehicle from Bengaluru to Bangarpet. Hence, there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. The claimant in M.V.C.No.34/2006 examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 12. The Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.1.

8. The claimants in M.V.C.No.7/2010 have examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. The respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R.1 and 2.

9. The Tribunal after considering the case in M.V.C.No.34/2006, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.1,40,540/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

10. The Tribunal also allowed M.V.C.No.7/2010 in part granting compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum from the d