JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 06.07.2013 passed in M.V.C. No. 8269/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (the Tribunal for short) questioning the quantum of compensation, apportioning 50% negligence on the driver of both the vehicles and fastening the liability on the owner of one of the offending vehicle.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 30.07.2009, the deceased B.S. Vijaya Kumar was travelling as an inmate of Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-05: C-123 on Mysuru-Bengaluru road, near Indoorpalya (Bidadi), the driver of Lorry bearing registration No. KA-05: B-8596 drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KA-42: 1291 came to the extreme right and dashed the Tata Sumo as a result of which B.S.Vijaya Kumar along with 8 others sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that both the vehicles had negligence to the extent of 50% and no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata sumo. Hence, apportioned 50% negligence each on both the vehicles.

5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined claimant No. 3 as P.W.1 and examined one more witness as P.W.2 got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 22. On the other hand, the respondents have examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioners in part granting compensation of Rs.13,03,200/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

7. The main contentions urged in this appeal before this Court are that the Insurer has to satisfy such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful so as to absolve itself from the liability but in the instant case there is no evidence adduced by the 4th respondent Insurance Company to prove that insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) ACJ 1044 (SC).

8. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial statute enacted for the welfare of the victims of accident. If the liability is fastened against the owner as against the insurer as it is done in the instant case the main objective of the beneficial statute goes unfulfilled. The Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company Ltd, (2013) 3 SCC(Cri) 11, wherein, it is held that irrespective of the fact that the driver of the vehicle not possessing valid licence as on the date of accident, the liability has to be fastened against the insurer and the insurer is at liberty to get indemnified in accordance with law. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the 4th respondent but for contending in its written statement that the driver of the Tipper Lorry was not possessing valid license as on the date of accident has not produced any evidence in support of its contention.

9. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of death and he was drawing a salary of Rs.11,800/- per month. The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the educational qualification of the deceased and only taken 50% of future prospects. The other