The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of permit condition does not absolve the insurance company from paying compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. While MFA No.201195/2016 is filed by respondent No.2/insurance company to exonerate it from the liability of paying the compensation, MFA Crob No.200019/2018 is filed by the by the petitioners to enhance the compensation.

2. Since these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, daughter and parents of deceased-Tippanna Totad. On 27/2/2012 deceased and his son-Vishwaradhya were proceeding in Tum-Tum Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA33-6910 from the Abbe Tumkur to Yadgiri. On Abbe Tumkur - Mudanal road near the land of Ishwarapa, another Tum-Tum Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-33-9715 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') driven by one Mallu @ Mallikarjun came from the opposite side, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the auto rickshaw in which deceased and his son were travelling. Due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries. Initially he was taken to Government Hospital, Yadgiri and on the advise of doctors shifted to Government Hospital, Gulbarga. He died on the same day. Deceased was aged 45 years, earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month, petitioners were dependents on him. As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements denying the age, occupation, income of the deceased and that deceased sustained injuries in the accident. The driver of the Tum-Tum auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-33-6910 was also rash or negligent and responsible for causing the accident. Respondent No.2 has further contended that since there is violation of permit condition, it is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1- owner.

6. Based on these pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

7. On behalf of petitioners, petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and they have relied upon Exs.P1 to 8.

8. Respondent No.1 has examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to 3.

9. On behalf of respondent No.2, RWs.2 and 3 are examined and Exs.R4 to 9 are marked.

10. Vide the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granting compensation in a sum of Rs.8, 21, 000.00 with interest at 6% per annum as detailed below:

11. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation with interest.

12. During the course of argument, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that the Ex.R5/permit was issued to ply the offending vehicle within radius of 8kms from Shahapur and since the accident took place beyond the permit limit, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Without there being any evidence, the Tribunal has erred in presuming that the accident occurred within the limits of the residence of respondent No.1 and prays to allow the appeal.

12.1 He has relied upon the decision of Coordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.200104/2014 c/w MFA No.200088/2014 dtd. 22/1/2018 in Ningappa vs. Lions Comprehensive Eye Care Foundation and Anr. (Ningappa's case) and prays to atleast direct respondent Nos.2 to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1-owner.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel representing claimants submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.10, 000.00 per month. Loss of future prospects is also required to be granted. The compensation granted under other heads is also on the lower side and requires enhancement.

13.1 Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.201648/2015 c/w MFA Nos.200325/2015 and 201533/2015 and MFA Crob No.200025/2016 dtd. 26/11/2020 in Abdul Rouf s/o Mohd. Rasool vs. Megharaj Mehdole s/o Khuchand and Others (Abdul Rouf's case), he submitted that violation of permit condition if an