JUDGMENT

P.R. Bora, J. - Since both these appeals are arising out of one accident, I have heard common arguments in both the appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by a common reasoning.

2. Original Respondents No.1, i.e. Driver as well as owner of the Ape Auto rickshaw bearing registration No. MH-26 G-5696, has preferred these appeals. In First Appeal No. 3810/2016 challenge is to the Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kandhar (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) in MACP No. 26/2014 decided on 28th April, 2016; whereas First Appeal No. 4276/2016 arises out of the judgment and award passed by the said Tribunal on the same day in MACP No. 27/2014.

3. Respondent No.1 in both these appeals are husband and wife in relation. Both were injured in a vehicular accident happened on 12th August, 2013.

They are hereinafter referred to as claimants. Both the claimants along with their son, by name Sonu, were travelling through the offending auto rickshaw. As alleged by the claimants, at the relevant time, driver of the offending auto rickshaw, i.e. appellant in both the present appeals, was driving the said auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner. As per the further contention in respective claim petitions filed by these claimants, the driver of the auto rickshaw lost his control over his vehicle because of which, it turned turtle and in the accident so happened, both the claimants received the injuries and were required to take a long treatment and were subjected to incur huge expenses there for. The claimants had, therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries received to them in the alleged accident and permanent disablement incurred by them because of the injuries caused to them in the said accident against the owner and insurer of the said auto rickshaw.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurance company on various grounds. It has denied the contention raised in the petition and had also taken a defense of breach of policy condition by the owner of offending auto rickshaw.

It was the contention of the insurance company that the owner cum driver of the auto rickshaw was not holding any valid driving license to drive the said auto rickshaw on the date of the accident. It was also alleged by the insurance company that the owner of the offending auto rickshaw carried excess number of passengers through the offending auto rickshaw which resulted in occurrence of the alleged accident. It was, therefore, the contention of the insurance company that by carrying excess number of passengers and by driving the auto rickshaw, without valid driving license, the insured had committed the breach of the terms of policy condition and as such the insurance company was not liable to indemnify him. The insurance company had placed on record the insurance policy as well as copy of the permit of the offending auto rickshaw demonstrating that the sitting capacity of the said offending auto rickshaw was 3 + 1 only. The insurance company, however, did not adduce any oral evidence. The owner cum driver of the offending auto rickshaw, i.e. original Respondent No.1, also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

5. The learned Tribunal, after having assessed the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record before it, partly allowed both the claim petitions with proportionate costs. The learned Tribunal held the claimant in MACP No. 27/2014 entitled for the compensation of Rs. 2,13,197/- and held the claimant in MACP No. 26/2014 entitled for the compensation of Rs. 2,35,948/-. The Tribunal held Respondent No.1 alone responsible for payment of the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured in both the claim petitions and dismissed the claim petitions against the insurance company. Aggrieved by, original Respondent No.1 in both the claim petitions, who is owner