JUDGMENT :

MFA No.31483/2011 is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 in MVC No.44/2008 passed by the MACT, Lingasugur, on the issue regarding liability and also quantum of compensation awarded.

2. MFA No.31484/2011 is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the MACT, Lingasugur, in MVC No.15/2009 on the issue regarding liability and also quantum of compensation paid.

3. MFA No.200018/2014 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. The aforesaid appeals arise out of an accident that occurred on 17.02.2008 where the son of the claimant No.1 in MVC No.44/2008 and the husband of the claimant No.1 in MVC No.15/2009 expired. Thus, these appeals relate to common question of fact and law and are thus disposed of by this common judgment.

5. It is stated that the deceased-Vali Sab was driving a TATA 407 bearing registration No.KA345923 on 17.02.2008 and when he reached Kannari Cross, the vehicle turned turtle as the steering wheel got disjuncted. As a result, the deceased sustained head injuries and was shifted to Ballari Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was employed as a driver and was earning Rs.3,300/per month. The deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident. Having regard to the number of dependents on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/5th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at a sum of Rs.2,640/per month as the loss of dependency and applied the multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.5,06,880/towards loss of dependency and further a sum of Rs.20,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,72,000/as the total compensation payable.

6. The insurer is in appeal primarily on the ground that the deceased was a workman and that the Motor Vehicle Act is not intended to cover the risk of the death of such persons. It is contended that the driver is not a third party and cannot maintain a claim for his own fault. It is also contended that the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prembai Patel reported in 2005 ACJ 1323 has held that in such a scenario the liability of the insurance company would be restricted to the liability as determinable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The insurer submits that the compensation awarded is excessive as the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5th of the income as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. It is also contended that the vehicle involved is a goods carriage but the licence possessed by the deceased was in respect of non-transport vehicle and there was no endorsement in the licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. Thus it is contended that there is violation of policy conditions and the insurer was not liable.

7. On the other hand, the claimants in MVC No.15/2009 have contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation and has committed mistake in distributing the compensation.

8. It is noticed that the insurer did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal and did not adduce evidence. There is no dispute raised regarding the accident and the income of the deceased as well as his age and the dependents.

9. It is not the case of the insurer that the insurance policy which covered the vehicle in question was one issued under Section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act. A perusal of the statement filed by the insurer before the Tribunal indicates a total denial of the averments of the claim petition. Thus, the only question that requires to be considered in the present cases is,

Whether the claim petition before the Tribunal was sustainable? and if yes, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal had to be in line with the compensation prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Ac