JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. These appeals are preferred by the appellants/claimants against the common judgment and award dated 02.06.2014 rendered by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. MFA No. 5861/2014 is filed against the order passed in MVC No. 439/2012. MFA No. 5862/2014 pertains to the case in MVC No. 438/2012 and MFA No. 5863/2014 is relating to MVC No. 436/2012.

3. The factual matrix of the appeals is that on 11.01.2012 at about 11.00 AM, claimants and deceased Divya while traveling in TATA Ace No. KA-11-A-0957 in order to attend the function at Chikkallur Temple from Katteri village, the driver of the said TATA Ace drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and near Varuna lake situated on Mysore - T. Narasipura road, he lost control over the vehicle and it got turtled and toppled on the left side of the road, as a result of the same, the accident occurred and daughter of petitioner in MVC No. 436/2012 sustained grievous injuries to head and died in hospital on 14.01.2012 and the petitioners in other petitions sustained injuries. They had spent huge amount towards medical expenses and food, diet, transportation, attendant charges. Prior to the accident, the petitioners were hale and healthy and were earning good income. After the accident they are not able to do the work as earlier. Further, deceased Divya was aged 3½ years old and was very active and bright and she was the only daughter to the petitioners in MVC No. 439/2012. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending TATA Ace vehicle, by its driver, respondent no. 1 being the owner and respondent No. 2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. On these grounds, the claim petitions were filed seeking compensation before the Tribunal.

4. Upon service of notice, both the respondents entered appearance through their counsel. But respondent No. 2 filed objection statement in respect of all the petitions denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed separate issues in all the claim petitions. In order to substantiate their case, petitioners in MVC No. 436/2012, 438/2012 and 439/2012 got examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P22. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were got marked. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, rendered the impugned common judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 12,000/- in MVC No. 436/2012, Rs. 12,000/- in MVC No. 438/2012 and Rs. 3,00,350/- in MVC No. 439/2012 with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Further, the liability was fastened on the respondent-owner to pay the compensation awarded. It is this judgment which is under challenge under these appeals by urging various grounds.

6. Sri. N. Gopalkrishna, learned counsel for the claimants in all the appeals submits that he is not insisting for enhancement relating to MVC No. 436/2012 and MVC No. 438/2012. He is seeking enhancement only in respect of MVC No. 439/2012. His submission is placed on record.

7. He contends that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the second respondent-insurance company from the liability of paying the compensation awarded on the ground that vehicle which caused the accident was a Light Transport Vehicle, whereas, the driver of that vehicle was holding license to drive LMV, without transport endorsement, hence the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have directed the second respondent- insurance company at the first instance to pay the compensation awarded to the third party victim and thereafter would have given liberty to the insurer to recover compensation paid from the in