The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the importance of proving the driver's authorization and valid driving license.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: C.M.A.Nos.902/2020 & 677/2021: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore.

C.M.A.No.680/2021: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore.)

Common Judgment:

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. C.M.A.No.677 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. Seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the said award, the claimant has come out with C.M.A.No.902 of 2020.

C.M.A.No.680 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore.

2. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.962 & 1122 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Coimbatore. The claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.962 & 1122 of 2011 filed the said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 03.07.2011.

5. According to the claimant in both the claim petitions, on the date of accident, at about 10.15 p.m, when they were travelling in an Omni Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6604, on the Coimbatore to Sathy Road from West to East direction and while nearing Kunnathur Mahaliamman Kovil, the driver of the Omni Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road and caused the accident. In the accident, a girl named Aarthi died on the spot and 15 other passengers including the claimants sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Omni Bus. In M.C.O.P.No.962 of 2011, the claimant claimed that at the time of accident, one Balaji @ Praveen Kumar was driving the Omni Bus, while in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2011, the claimant claimed that at the time of accident, one R.Manikandan was driving the Omni Bus. Hence, the claimant in both the claim petitions filed the said claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondents 1 to 3 as driver, owner and insurer of the Omni Bus respectively. 6.Sreemani Devi, 2nd respondent who is owner of the Omni Bus filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants in both the claim petitions. According to the 2nd respondent, on 22.08.2010, she sold the Bus bearing Registration No.KA 20A 6604 to the 4th respondent and she was not the owner of the said Bus on the date of the accident. The said Chinnammal/4th respondent became absolute owner of the said Bus and was running the said Bus along with her grandsons Balaji @ Prakash and Dilip Kumar and hence, she is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

7. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement denying its liability to pay the compensation. According to the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent having sold the Omni Bus to 4th respondent, has fraudulently taken the insurance policy in her name without disclosing the transfer of Bus. The Regist