JUDGMENT :

1. Both these appeals arose from the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P. (MV) No. 345/2014. M.A.C.A. No. 2585/2016 is filed by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company challenging the said award, mainly on the ground that they are not liable to pay the compensation in view of the fact that, at the time when the accident occurred, the vehicle stood transferred from the insured and such transfer was not intimated to them within the period contemplated under section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

2. M.A.C.A. No. 2554/2017 was filed by petitioners 1 to 5 in the said claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation. In this judgment, the parties are referred to, in the sequence as mentioned in the claim petition, for convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The claim petition was filed by petitioners 1 to 5 who are respondents 1 to 5 in MACA No. 2585/2016, seeking compensation for the death of one Rajumon, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24.11.2013. At the relevant time, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-35-B-0976, which was being ridden by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the petitioners, he was the owner cum rider of the motorcycle and the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent at the relevant time. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition was the person in whose name the insurance policy at the relevant time was issued. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs as compensation.

4. Upon receipt of the notice, the 1st respondent appeared and filed a written statement, disputing the claim put forward by the petitioners. However, he admitted that he was the registered owner of the said vehicle. It was also contended by him that the vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent at the relevant time and, therefore, if any amount is found to be payable, the same has to be deposited by the 3rd respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent submitted a written statement contending that he sold the vehicle to the 1st respondent and the said transfer is already affected as per the endorsement made in the registration certificate with effect from 17.10.2013, whereas, the accident in this case occurred on 24.11.2013. Therefore it was contended that, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company admitted the existence of a valid policy in respect of the vehicle in question but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed by them. It was further contended by the Insurance Company that as on the date when the accident occurred, the vehicle stood transferred to the 1st respondent, whereas the policy was issued in the name of the 2nd respondent, who was the previous owner of the said vehicle. It is contended that, by virtue of the stipulations contained in Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the transferee/ 1st respondent had an obligation to intimate the Insurance Company as to the said transfer within a period of 14 days from the date of such transfer. In this case, no such intimation has been given by the 1st respondent and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the 3rd respondent, since there is violation of statutory stipulations.

6. The evidence in this case consists of PWs. 1 to 3 and Exhibits A1 to A11 from the side of the petitioners. From the side of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B10 were marked.

7. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal passed an award, allowing an amount of Rs. 28,77,000/- as compensation to the petitioners, which was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e. from 16.6.2014 onwards. With regard to the contention raised by the 3rd respondent-Insura