Though these matters are listed for admission today, with

the consent of both the learned counsel, they are taken up for

final disposal.

These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 05.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.Nos.214/2012 and

215/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM

4

and MACT, Mandya (8the Tribunal9 for short) questioning the

quantum of compensation and also the liability.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant in

M.F.A.No.6273/2014 before the Tribunal is that she met with an

accident on 31.10.2011 and both upper and lower tooth were

broken. The case of the claimant in M.F.A.No.6274/2014 before

the Tribunal is that her husband Shivaramu met with an accident

on 31.10.2011 and died at the post. It is the case of the

claimants that the accident occurred due to the negligence on

the part of the driver of the lorry hearing registration No.JH-01-

L-2496.

4.

The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim,

examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondent

5

No.2-Insurance Company examined a witness as R.W.1 and got

marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3 and R2(a).

5.

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record in M.V.C.No.214/2012,

allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of

Rs.6,30,000/-

with

interest

at

9%

per

annum

and

in

M.V.C.No.215/2012 awarded global compensation of Rs.50,000/-

with interest at 9% per annum. Hence, these two appeals are

filed by the claimants.

6.

M.F.A.No.6273/2014

is

filed

by

the

claimant

questioning the award of global compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the

global compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of

Rs.50,000/- is very meager since, both the upper and lower

tooth were broken and she is having difficulty in chewing the

food.

7.

M.F.A.No.6274/2014

is

filed

by

the

claimant

questioning the quantum of compensation of Rs.6,30,000/-

6

awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the claimant

would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the

income at Rs.5,000/- per month and the notional income would

be Rs.6,500/- per month. Apart from that, no future prospects

is added while awarding compensation on the head of loss of

dependency and on the other heads also, compensation awarded

is very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the

Tribunal has considered the material available on record and

rightly awarded a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in

M.V.C.No.215/2012 since, only the upper and lower tooth of the

claimant were broken. The counsel would also submit that in the

case in M.V.C.No.214/2012 where there is no documentary

evidence with regard to the income is concerned, the Tribunal

has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month

and awarded just and reasonable compensation and it does not

require any interference. The counsel would further submit that

the liability is fastened on the insured since, there was no permit

7

to ply the vehicle in Karnataka and permit was there only to ply

the vehicle within the state of Jharkhand. Hence, no liability is

fastened on the Insurance Company.

9.

In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, learned

counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit

that the liability is also questioned before this Court and the

Tribunal ought to have ordered for pay and recovery, even

though there is no permit to ply the vehicle in the state of

Karnataka.

10.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record with regard to the

liability is concerned,