JUDGMENT :

1. Both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment and award dated 17.7.2020 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (learned Member of the tribunal), Mangrulpir in MACP No.26/2014.

First Appeal No.28/2021 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

Whereas First Appeal No.339/2020 is preferred by the owner and challenged the findings of learned Member of the tribunal exonerating the insurance company.

The parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclatures.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:

On 6.11.2013 , at about 6:30 am, Prasad Vinodrao Sarodaya (the deceased) was proceeding towards Wardha from Karanja in his own car bearing registration No.MH-32-C- 4126. When his car reached near Shingnapur Phata, one school bus bearing registration No.MH-31-CB-8915, driven by respondent No.1 (in FA No.28/2021) who is also respondent No.4 (in FA No.339/2022) Vishal s/o Manikrao Lokhande (the driver of the offending school bus), in a rash and a negligent manner dashed against the said car of the deceased. Due to the severe dash, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. Regarding the said accident, a crime was registered at Nandgaon Khandeshwar Police Station vide Crime No.121/2013. As per the contentions of the claimants, the offending school bus was owned by respondent No.2 (in FA No.28/2021) and appellant No.1 (in FA No.339/2022) Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi, (Meghe), tahsil district Wardha (the Institute) and validly insured with respondent No.3 insurance company. The respondent No.2 (in FA No.28/2021) is the present owner and respondent No.4 Radha Riddhi Associates was the previous owner of the offending school bus. The claimants, therefore claimed that the driver, the owner i.e. the Institute, the previous owner, and the insurance company all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The claimants further claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was 36 years old, Software Engineer, and was earning Rs.70,000/- per month and, therefore, they are entitled for just compensation.

3. The Institute respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 the previous owner of the offending school bus resisted the claim by filing written statement. As per their defence, the offending school bus was insured with the insurance company vide cover note No.1088141 validly for 10.7.2013 to 9.7.2014. Hence, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owners. They denied the allegations of a rash and negligent driving.

4. The insurance company also resisted the claim on the ground that the offending school bus was not insured with the insurance company. The policy bearing No.1088141 for the period 10.7.2013 to 9.7.2014 was cancelled on the request of the previous owner itself on 10.7.2013 and premium was refunded to the previous owner. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. To substantiate the contentions, the claimant No.1 adduced her evidence. Besides, her oral evidence, she placed reliance on police papers, FIR, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, accident form, chargesheet, driving licence of the driver of the offending school bus and driving licence of the deceased. Besides her oral evidence, to prove the income, she also examined Mahendra Kamble who was serving in I.T. Department. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Institute and the previous owner of the offending school bus. The insurance company has examined Krishnakant Manohar Santnani and Rahul Sudhir Surpaithankar to show that the policy issued in favour of previous owner of the offending school bus was cancelled on the basis of the instructions received from the previous owner i.e. respondent no.4.

6. After appreciating the evidence, learned Member of the tribunal came to the conclusion that previously the offending school b