VASANTH KUMAR S/O LATE RAJAMUTHU Vs. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER 4TH FLOOR, LEO COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE -560001 AND SRI RAMANNA S/O BABU MELEKUDIYA, ALUR DHARMASTHALA POST BELTHANGADI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals by the respective claimants arise out of the common judgment and award dated 20th March 2006 in MVC No. 4427/2003, MVC No. 4428/2003 and MVC No. 4429/2003 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, Member, MACT/ -4, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH No. 4) ('Tribunal', for short). The Tribunal, by its common judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/ -, Rs. 15,000/ - and Rs. 67,000/ - respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the 2nd respondent -owner of this offending vehicle. The appellants have presented these appeals contending that the condensation awarded is inadequate and requites enhancement, and that fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle instead of fastening the liability on the insurer is not sustainable.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are, the claimants have filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation against the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/ - Rs. 1,60,000/ - and Rs. 2,15, 000/ - respectively, contending that on 22.4.2003 they met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA -19 -2686 and that they had engaged the Goods vehicle for transportation of mud pipes from Bagewala to Mandya and that they had sold the mud pipes at Mandya and while returning to Bagewala, they sustained injuries. It is the further case of the appellants that they had undergone treatment and spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing, food, attendant charges and medical expenses on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal committed grave error much less material irregularity in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle instead of fastening the liability on the insurer as the insurance policy was very much in force as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company has collected extra premium also towards additional liability and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award and that the tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on file while fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, she submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.