These Appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 24th September, 2016 passed in MVC No.46 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raibag, (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to as per their status and rank before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24th February, 2014, about 11.10 am, when the deceased-Neminath was proceeding as pedestrian, the tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/T-6786 attached with two trailers bearing Registration No.KA-23/TA-2437 and KA-23/TA-2438, which were fully loaded with sugarcane was proceeding from Ganeshwadi towards Ourawad and the driver of the said tractor drove the same in high speed and has lost control and dashed to the deceased and the trailer fell on the deceased and was dragged with force, resultantly, the said Neminath suffered injuries and died on the spot. After the accident body was shifted to MO at Zilla Parishath Hospital, Kurundwad where -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 post-mortem was conducted. It was contended that petitioners have spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. It is further contended that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 28 years, was doing agriculture coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Because of the untimely accidental death of the deceased, the family of the petitioners have lost their earning member and are suffering mentally and financially. It is further contended respondents 1 and 2 are the owners and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly the claimants preferred claim petition.

4. In pursuance of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements. The substance of written statement of respondent No.1 is that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the pedestrian and not due to the negligent act of the driver of the tractor-trailer. The driver of the said tractor-trailer was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident at the time of accident. Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 vehicle and accordingly, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.2 has also filed objections in the line of respondent No.1 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Respondent No.3, in its written statement, contended that as on the date time of accident, i.e. 24th February, 2014, the policy No.610202/31/13/6700011814 for tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/T-6786 was not valid as the said policy came into effect from 25th February, 2014 valid till 24th February, 2015. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. Tractor was linked with two trailers bearing Registration No.KA-23/TA-1542 and KA-23/TA-1543, but at the time of accident the said tractor was attached with other two trailers bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-2437 and KA-23/TA- 2438 and it is not permissible to attach the said trailers as per the policy conditions. The petitioners have not produced the RC of the tractor. It is further contended that the accident occurred in Maharashtra State and the Kurundawad police have not filed report within time. It is also contended that as per the contention of the petitioners they are residents of Chinchali -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 village of Raibag Taluk but the accident occurred in Maharashtra State. Respondents 1 and 2 have violated the policy conditions and hence respondent-Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated the following issues for its consideration.

1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident was took place on 24.02.2014 due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-23/T-6786 with two trolleys bearing No.KA23/TA-2437 and KA23/TA-2438 and near land of Mohan Patil, on Ganeshwadi- Kavateguland Road, within the limits of Alas village and dashed to deceased Shri. Neminath Tayappa Akkennavar who was proceeding towards by walk at about 23-10 hours?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so what extent, and from whom?

3. What order or award?

7. In order to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and marked ten documents as per Exhibits P1 to P10. On behalf respondents, two persons were -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 examined as R1 and R2 and got marked thirteen documents as per Exhibits R1 to R13. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal has answered the issues as under:

Rs.10,95,000/- from respondent No.3.

Addl. Issue No.1: In the affirmative.

Addl. Issue No.2: In the affirmative.

Issue No.3: As per final order

8. In view of the above finding, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the National Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.100084 of 2017 questioning liability as well as quantum of compensation. The claimants have preferred MFA No.101171 of 2017 seeking enhancement in compensation.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed error in saddling the liability on the insurer though there was no

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 contract of indemnity between the insurer and the owner of the tractor. It is submitted that the policy of tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/T-6786 is not valid as on the date of accident as the policy was to commence from 25th February, 2014 through 24th February, 2015. It is also contended that the driver of the tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence as the driver was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle and if the tractor is attached with trailer it comes under the category of goods vehicle and there is no endorsement to drive the tractor attached with two trailers. Further it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. On all these grounds, sought for allowing the appeal.

10. As against the same, learned counsel appearing for claimants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation and hence, sought for enhancement in compensation. To buttress his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. BHADRAMMA AND OTHERS reported in 2010 ACJ 1687; in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SHIMOGA v. B.S. PRASAD AND ANOTHER reported in 2012

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 Kant. M.A.C.1, (Kant.); in the case of CATHERINE LOUIS A. v. KENGAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2022 ACJ 536; and the judgment of High Court of Kerala in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SUDHAKARAN AND OTHERS reported in 2019 ACJ 1162.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:

12. Our answer for the above points is as under:

13. We have carefully examined the material placed by both sides. On the basis of complaint filed by one Ashok Bapusaheb Sirnaik, Kurundwad Police has registered Case No.16 of 2014 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 , 337 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 134(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted First Information Report to the Court. The Police have visited the spot, recorded the statement of witnesses in presence of panchans, conducted inquest panchanama and collected motor vehicle report and post mortem report and submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending Tractor and Trailers. Considering the evidence placed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailer. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

14. With regard to liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal, in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment, has observed as under:

15. In addition to this, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-claimants has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of CATHERINE LOUIS A (supra), in which this Court relying the Division Bench of this Court in the case of BHADRAMMA (supra) that in terms of Section 64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act, the risk of the Insurance Company would commence from the time of receipt of premium. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions in the case of B.K. PRASAD (supra); and the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of SUDHAKARAN AND OTHERS (supra) reported in 2019 ACJ 1162. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions and also aforestated provisions of Insurance Act , we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, we do not find any legal infirmities/illegalities with regard to liability of the insurance company as held by the Tribunal. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017

16. As regards quantum is concerned it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of accident. In the absence of any documentary proof as regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month which is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the income comes to Rs.10,500/-. As there are five dependents, as per the decision of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the income comes to Rs.7,875/-. The Tribunal has taken the appropriate 17. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,06,500/- (Rs.7,875/- x 12 x 17). Further, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of SARAL and PRANAY SETHI, so also in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled for following compensation:

17. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10079-DB MFA No. 100084 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101171 of 2017 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation;

4. Respondent Insurance company shall deposit the entire amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, before the Tribunal for onward disbursal to the claimants;

6. The apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal;

5. Registry to draw award accordingly;

6. Send the copy of this judgment along with trial Court to the concerned court forthwith.

JUDGE CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49