JUDGMENT :

1. MFA No.9317/2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company whereas MFA No.4825/2015 has been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the judgment dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same judgment, they were heard analogously and have been decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20.11.2013, at about 1.00 a.m., the deceased was walking on the extreme left side of Ramamurthynagar main road, near railway bridge along with his friend. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-03 AB-540 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased from behind. As a result of the impact of the accident, deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was working as a driver and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/-. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. An amount of Rs.30,00,000/-along with interest was claimed as compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of negligence of the deceased as he was walking in the middle of the road and crossing the road without observing the traffic. It was also denied that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also disputed. It was further pleaded that the claim for compensation is excessive and exorbitant. The respondent No.2, in the statement of objections, inter alia pleaded that he was the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and policy of insurance was in force at the time of accident.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondents examined one B.Guruprasad as RW-1, and got marked document Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. It was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It was further held, that the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation as the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and that the Tribunal ought to have invoked the principle of pay and recovery in view of decision of the Supreme Court in 'PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANR.' AIR 2018 SC 592. It was submitted that the Insurance Company be granted liberty to pay the compensation and to recover the same from its owner. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the deceased was negligent and the accident was caused as he was walking in the middle of the road in the night at 1 a.m. without observing the vehicle or traffic. It is further submitted that the deceased was a driver but no evidence was adduced with regard to his income. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income at Rs.7,000/-p.m. It is further submitted th