JUDGMENT :

C. M. Joshi, J.

These appeals are directed against the common judgment in MVC Nos.509/2006, 510/2006, 511/2006 & 512/2006 dated 01.10.2010 passed by the leaned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Ranebennur (for short "the Tribunal"). The appellant insurance company was arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal in all these cases.

2. By consent of both the parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal though they were slated for admission.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners approached the Tribunal contending that on 20.12.2005 at about 1.15 p.m., they were going in a tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-27/6321 from Ranebennur to Haveri as authorized passengers and the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and near the cattle market, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-1434 came from Byadagi towards Ranebennur on extreme left side of the road and the driver of the tempo trax dashed to the said KSRTC bus and then the KSRTC bus dashed to the tanker lorry bearing registration No.27/V-2587 and caused the accident. Due to the collision, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to General Hospital, Haveri for treatment. The petitioners also took treatment in private hospitals and had to spend Rs.25,000/- each towards treatment and still they need another Rs.25,000/- for follow-up treatment. It was contended that the petitioners were the only earning members of the family and they were working at S.R.Company and due to the accident, they sustained permanent disability and they are entitled for the compensation as claimed in the petition. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo trax and hence, respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the said tempo trax are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 who was the owner of the tempo trax did not appear before the Tribunal and therefore, was placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed objections contending that the owner and insurer of the KSRTC bus as well as tanker lorry are also necessary parties to the petition and that the driver of the tempo trax was not having a valid and effective driving licence and PSV Badge as on the date of the accident is admitted. Inter-alia it was also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable under law and they denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioners.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, similar necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal in all the cases and common evidence was recorded. The petitioners examined themselves as PW1 to PW4 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. The doctor, who assessed the disability of these petitioners, though was common, his affidavits were separately filed in each petition and therefore, the Tribunal treated him as PW5 to PW8. The respondent No.2-insurance company examined its official as RW1 and examined two medical officers of Ranebennur Govt Hospital as RW2 and RW3 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked on their behalf. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal awarded an identical sum of Rs.1,84,600/- each in all the cases directing the respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the same.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent No.2-ins