Point of law: vehicle which did not have permit to ply on the road which fact cannot but be heid to be in violation of policy conditions. The contention that the owner should not be made liable even on the principle of pay and recover is rejected.

JUDGMENT :

M.Nagaprasanna, J

These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). The Insurance Company has filed M.F.A.No.32864/2013 questioning the liability and quantum of compensation and MFA No.200431/2014 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in its judgment and award dated 17.09.2013 MVC No.225/2013.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that on 15.03.2013 the deceased who was working as driver in SLN College of Engineering was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-33/J-3762, at which point in time, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.CNJ-7306 being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from Tippu Sultan circle side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over the body of the deceased and he died on the spot.

4. The claimants namely wife, children and mother of the deceased filed claim petition before the MACT and II Additional District Judge at Raichur on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month working as a driver and with the loss of the bread earner the family is put to jeopardy and accordingly claimed a compensation of Rs.30,45,000/-along with interest.

5. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1-driver appeared but did not file the written statement and respondent No.2 and 3 the owner of the vehicle and insurance company filed their written statements. The first respondent driver of the vehicle adopted the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle. The second respondent while admitting the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the manner in which the accident occurred contended that the insurance policy was in force and insurance company was liable to pay the compensation determined.

6. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent-insurance company denied the accident and the contention that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. According to the Insurance company, the accident took place, but not due to the negligence of the driver, but on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. It is also contended that the first respondent driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle had no permit to ply on the road. The age, avocation and income of the deceased were also disputed.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

8. The claimants, in order to prove their case, produced about 11 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1. On the other hand, the Insurance Company marked about 5 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and examined one witness as R.W.1.

9. The Claims Tribunal, inter alia, by the impugned judgment, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry -respondent No.1 and further held that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the fastening of the liability in its entirety upon the insurance company, the insurance company has preferred MFA No.32864/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred MFA No.200431/2014.

10. We have heard Smt. Bhadrashetty Sangeeta C., learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4 -claimants and Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

11. Smt. Bhadrashetty Sangeeta C., learned counsel appearing for the insurance company wou