JUDGMENT :

V. Srishananda, J.

1. Though these matters are listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. All these matters arise out of one and the same Judgment and Award and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The rank of the parties are referred as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

4. Appellant in MFA No. 1123/2016 is the insurer of the bus bearing No. KA-44/1278 who was the 4th respondent in MVC No. 4506/2013 challenged the validity of the Judgment and Award dated 17th April 2015 on the file of MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short). The claimants have filed cross objection in MFA CROB. No. 108/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. So also the Insurance Company of the motor- cycle which was involved in the same accident has filed MFA No. 5512/2015 challenging the validity of the same Judgment and Award and the claimants have filed cross objection in MFA.CROB. No. 109/2020 in the appeals.

6. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these matters are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that on 15.07.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., when Krishnamurthy was proceeding as a pillion-rider on the motor-cycle bearing No. KA-02-HC- 9164, the rider of the motor-cycle was moving with proper speed and following the necessary rules, when they reached near Doddabidare village bus stand at Chikkanayakanahalli to Hiriyur road, driver of the bus bearing No. KA-44/1278 who was also proceeding in the same direction, all of a sudden applied brakes without proper signal, whereby rider of the motor-cycle could not control the vehicle and dashed against the hind portion of the bus resulting in falling down of rider and pillion-rider from the motor-cycle. It is further contended that pillion- rider of the motor-cycle sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chhikkanayakanahalli for first aid treatment and from there to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and from there to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and succumbed to the injuries two days later. It is further contended that the Respondents 2 and 3 who are the R.C. owners of the motor-cycle and the bus and Respondents 1 and 4 who being the insurer of the motor- cycle and bus are jointly liable to pay the compensation for the accidental death of Krishnamurthy and thus sought for awarding suitable compensation.

7. In response to the notice issued, all the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and through their Advocates, filed statement of objections denying the petition averments. Second respondent no doubt admitted that he is the R.C. owner of the motor-cycle and the deceased was riding the motor-cycle at the time of accident.

8. First respondent who is the insurer of the motor- cycle contended that rider of the motor-cycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence, but admitted that policy was in force. First respondent also contended that accident has occurred on account of the negligent driving of the bus. Third respondent who is the owner of the bus, contended that the accident has taken place on account of the negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle without maintaining minimum distance between the vehicles and denied that driver of the bus has suddenly applied the brake. Fourth respondent admitted the incident and contended that bus driver did not possess a valid driving licence and accident has occurred on account of the negligent riding of the two-wheeler and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the bus driver and sought for dismissal of the petition.

9. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised necessary issues.

10. In order to prove the claim petition averments, first claimant Smt. Lalithamma who is the wife of the deceased was examined as PW. 1 and one eye-witness by name Anjana Bhovi was examined as P.W. 2. Claimants relie