1. These two appeals are filed by the insurer of the offending tanker bearing registration No. KA 25/6059 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.2.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity), in MVC Nos. 696/2012 and 285/2012, on the ground of liability.

2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the same are taken up for final disposal.

3. The parties to these appeals are referred to by their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The facts of the case as revealed from the records are:
On 9.11.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased - Pruthivigouda was travelling as a pillion rider along with the claimant in MVC No. 285/2012 on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 25 - EE 5685 and when the said motor cycle reached near Belavantar village near Basavanadevargudi, the offending tanker bearing registration No. KA 25-6059, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from Mundagod towards Kalaghatagi side and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result the rider as well as the pillion rider suffered grievous injuries and the pillion rider succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital. The claimants in MVC No. 696/2012, who are the parents of the deceased Pruthivigouda, who was the pillion rider on the motor cycle, had filed a claim petition under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending tanker, while the injured - claimant had filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in MVC No. 285/2012, claiming compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and had saddled the liability to pay the compensation amount on the insurer of the offending tanker and being aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this court.

5. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that the driver of the offending tanker did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle carrying hazardous substance and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer of the offending vehicle. He submits that the driver held only a heavy goods vehicle driving licence and there is no endorsement in the said licence to the effect that he was also entitled to drive heavy goods vehicle carrying hazardous substance. Since the vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeals.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the offending lorry at the time of accident was not carrying any hazardous substance. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly saddled the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer of the said vehicle, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velumurugan V., 2016 ACJ 475 (Karnataka). Accordingly he prays to dismiss the appeals.

7. The accident in question is not in dispute, so also the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident, in which the claimant in MVC No. 285/2012 was injured and the son of the claimants in MVC No. 696 / 2012 had died. It is also not in dispute that the offending tanker bearing registration No. KA 25-6059, which was involved in the said accident, was duly insured with the appellant insurer and the said policy was valid as on the date of accident. The material on record would go to show that, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective heavy goods vehicle driving licence. The material on record would also go to show that the offending tanker was empty as o