The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the time limitation provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the impact of such interpretation on the admissibility of claim petitions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J. - In M.F.A.No.201512/2018 and M.F.A.No. 201513/2018, the Insurance Company and in M.F.A.No.201847/2018 and M.F.A.No.201839/2018, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dtd. 30/6/2018 passed in M.V.C.No.757/2015 and M.V.C.No.758/2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijaypur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

2. The parties will be referred with respect to their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 are the children of one Sayedsab Makandar, deceased No.1 and the petitioners in M.V.C.No.758/2015 are the wife and son of Basvantharaigouda Patil, deceased No.2. Both the deceased while traveling from Mumbai to Shorapur in an Ambassador car bearing No.MYR-599 were killed at the spot when their vehicle met with an accident that took place at a place, which was at a distance of 4 Kms. from Theur Fata in Maharashtra State.

4. The petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking compensation. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company on the grounds that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation and there was no insurance coverage for the car in question. The Tribunal ignored the contention of the Insurance Company and assessed the compensation at Rs.1, 92, 000.00 in M.V.C.No.757/2015 and Rs.3, 76, 000.00 in M.V.C.No.758/2015 and fastened the liability against the Insurance Company. In both cases, the Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment and the petitioners in both cases are before this court seeking enhancement.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased in both cases were earning more than Rs.8, 000.00 per month, but the Tribunal did not consider it, the compensation to be awarded on conventional heads are assessed on the lower side and hence, they sought for enhancement. In order to answer the liability of the Insurance Company, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhannalal -vs- D.P.Vijayvargiya and others - (1996) 4 SCC 652.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the accident took place on 6/2/1989 and the claim petitions were filed in the year 2015 after an inordinate delay of 26 years. On the date of the accident, the applicable law for claiming of compensation was Sec. 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where the period of limitation was fixed as six months from the date of accident and therefore, claim petitions were time barred. It is also contended that the car was not insured, the policy of insurance produced pertains to insurance coverage provided to a goods vehicle and therefore, fastening of liability on the Insurance Company is erroneous. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Purohit and Company -vs- Khatoonbee and Another - (2017) 4 SCC 783.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records.

8. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, the undisputed facts are that the accident took place on 6/2/1989 when both the deceased were travelling as passengers in the car, met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 are the sons of deceased No.1 whereas the petitioners in M.V.C.No.758/2015 are the wife and son of deceased No.2. Both the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation.

9. The Tribunal considered the income at Rs.3, 000.00 per month, calculated the loss of dependency. 30% of the same is awarded as loss of estate in favour of the petitioners in M.V.C.No.757/2015 as they are the major sons and not the dependants of deceased No.1, relying on the judgment in the case of A.Manavalagan -vs- A.Krishnamurthy and others - ILR 2004 KAR 3268.

10. As we notice from the reasoning assigned by the Tribuna