1. These three appeals are preferred against a common order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together.

2. M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008 is filed by Lalitha for compensation claiming to be the first wife of the deceased Rudragouda Patil; M.V.C. No. 73 of 2009 is also filed for compensation by Pushpa and Neethi, claiming to be the wife and daughter of deceased Rudragouda Patil. Both these petitions were clubbed with another petition, where claim for injury was made, common evidence was recorded and impugned order came to be passed, dismissing the petition filed by Pushpa and Neethi and M.F.A. No. 24186 of 2012 is filed against the said dismissal order. In M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008, while awarding compensation to Lalitha, a finding was recorded that Pushpa, respondent No. 3 therein, is not the wife of Rudragouda Patil and, therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, Pushpa has preferred M.F.A. No. 24051 of 2012. Lalitha, who claims to be the first wife, has also preferred M.F.A. No. 24165 of 2012 seeking enhancement of compensation. As such these three appeals are taken together for consideration and disposed of by a common order.

3. Rudragouda Patil was working as the Regional Manager with Omni - Lens Pvt. Ltd., and was drawing handsome salary of Rs. 15,000 per month plus other perquisites. He was also running paying guest home and was earning Rs. 35,000. That apart, he was also earning Rs. 2,00,000 from agriculture. In all the deceased was earning more than Rs. 9,00,000. On the fateful day, that is, 16.9.2007 he had gone to bring milk on his Honda - Activa vehicle and when he was near Big Bazaar, Bangalore at about 6.30 a.m., a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 13 - A 2969 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came and dashed against him and also one pedestrian. Due to the impact, he was dragged for more than 25 to 35 ft and sustained severe head injuries and other injuries all over the body. Immediately he was taken to nearby Shekar Hospital, from where he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital in Bangalore, where it was advised that he should be taken to Sagar Apollo Hospital in Bangalore. Accordingly he was admitted as an inpatient from 16.9.2007 to 30.11.2007 in Sagar Apollo Hospital; more than ten major operations were conducted under general anaesthesia. Claimants claim that they have spent about Rs. 20,00,000. In spite of best efforts and best treatment, Rudragouda Patil succumbed to injuries on 30.11.2007; his body was taken to Victoria Hospital for post - mortem and thereafter the funeral ceremony was conducted in Bangalore.

4. Pushpa claiming to be the wife and Neethi, her daughter, originally preferred a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 9087 of 2007 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Bangalore. Lalitha claiming to be the first wife preferred a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Hubli claiming compensation of Rs. 90,00 000 On coming to know of the filing of the petition by Pushpa and Neethi, Lalitha moved this court in Civil Petition No. 506 of 2008 and got the petition on the file of the M.A.C.T., Bangalore transferred to the Tribunal at Hubli. That is how both these petitions were clubbed together and a common trial was conducted before the Tribunal at Hubli.

5. After service of notice, respondents entered appearance and the owner of the vehicle in question remained ex parte. It is only the insurance company which filed the statement of objections contending that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased and, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. However, it did not dispute the accident and the insurance coverage to the vehicle in question.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008 and M.V.C. No. 73 of 2009.
Issues in M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008:
"(1) Whether the petitioner proves that her husband by name Rudragouda died in a mot