JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

MFA No.6243/2017 preferred by the petitioners and MFA No.22/2017 preferred by the Insurance Company are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.943/2014 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and MACT, Mandya, on 13-10-2016 whereby a sum of Rs.14,59,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of the death of one Manju C.K. in the road traffic accident.

2. Brief facts of the case:

The petitioners who are the parents of the deceased C.K.Manju, have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation contending that the deceased was working as a loader and unloader under respondent No.1 in his Ape Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-11/A-4085 and on 26.04.2014 when the deceased had gone in the vehicle on the direction of the respondent No.1 from Basaralu to Chikkagangavadi village to unload manure bags, the driver of the ape goods vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle turned turtle at about 3.00 p.m near the land of Sri Bettegowda of Maralakere. The driver of the goods Ape vehicle ran away from the spot after the accident and another person who was on the motor cycle saw the accident and he extricated the deceased from the vehicle and shifted him to hospital and later lodged the complaint to the police. The deceased was initially admitted to Vikram hospital, Mandya and was referred to Apollo hospital at Mysuru and Narayana Hrudayalaya, Mysuru. But the treatment proved to be futile and he succumbed to the injuries on 27.04.2014. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is claimed to have been spent towards the treatment. It was further contended that, the deceased was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and had an income of Rs.6,000/- p.m. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer and the contract of insurance was in force as on the date of the accident and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their objections.

4. The respondent No.1 admits that he is the owner of the vehicle in question and that minimum wages were paid to the deceased and the case registered in Cr.No.61/ 2014 is also admitted. It is also contended that the vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.2 and as on the date of the accident, the contract of insurance was in force. The driver of the auto had a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and therefore, the liability has to be fastened against respondent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2 in the written statement contended that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger in the goods auto and the respondent No.1 had allowed a passenger to travel in the goods vehicle which is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy and there was no such relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1 as employee and employer. Therefore, there was violation of the conditions of the policy and also that the vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate and permit as on the date of the accident and therefore, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and hence, respondent No.2 has to be absolved from the liability.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioners got examined two witnesses as PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW2 and one Mohan Kumar was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked in evidence.

7. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal held that respondent No.2 Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.14,59,000/- under the following heads: