JUDGMENT :

ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR, J.

1. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments are heard for final disposal.

2. MFA No. 25046/2012 is filed by the legal representatives of deceased victim, while MFA No. 20593/2012 is filed by the insurance company. Both are assailing the judgment and award dated 03.03.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal in MVC No. 2608/2007.

3. At this stage it may be stated that both the insurance company has assailed on the question of quantum of liability, while the claimants have sought for enhancement of compensation.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in terms of their status and ranking before the tribunal.

5. The facts briefly stated are that on 30.04.2007 evening at about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased-victim Noorahammad Sutagatti was travailing as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-25/W-221 on Kittur Bailur road near KRCR school, a Tata Goods vehicle No. KA-24/3871 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result of which, the pillion rider Noorahammad Sutagatti sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to PHC kittur, KIMS Hubli, Sushruta Multispecialty hospital and Research Centre, Hubli, hospital situated at Belgaum and Hirebagewadi for treatment. On account of injuries sustained in the accident, said Noorahammad was under continuous treatment, later on 04.04.2008 the injured victim died because of the injuries sustained in the accident. The respondents being owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.

6. On service of notice, respondent No. 1 remained absent and respondent No. 2 insurance company has appeared and contested the claim petition.

7. On the basis of rival pleadings, the tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 30/04/2007 at about 18-00 hours on Kittur-Bailur road, near KRCR school Kittur, within the limits of Kittur Police station, in view of negligence use of a Goods Vehicle No. KA 24/3871 an accident took place resulting in the injuries to Noorahammad Sutagatti?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of Noorahammad Sutagatti was the consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident dated 30/04/2007?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation? If so at what extent and from whom?

4. What order?

8. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-24/3871 and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,76,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. directing respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the tribunal the insurance company has preferred the appeal challenging the liability, while the claimants have preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. Perused the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and other records.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company in MFA No. 20593/2012 would contend that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance company even though the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle had no valid permit. The tribunal has failed to consider that there was no nexus between the injury caused in the accident and death of the deceased. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been properly considered.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants who are appellants in MFA No. 25046/2012 submits that the respondent-Insurance company having satisfied the claim of the rider of t