JUDGMENT
All these four appeals are by the insurer of the Car bearing Registration No. KA-02-M-9637 challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence and liability, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the Car submits that in the road traffic accident occurred on 09.05.2004 due to involvement of Car bearing Registration No. KA-02-M-9637 and KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-07-F-507, two inmates of the car died and three inmates of the car including the driver sustained injuries. The legal representatives of two deceased persons and three injured persons had filed five separate claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore seeking compensation. Out of 5 claim petitions in MVC. No. 5003/2004 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Vijayakumar, before the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-17) it was that the accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus by its driver and entire liability is fastened against KSRTC; and M.F.A No. 7713/2007 preferred against the said judgment and award of the Tribunal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.08.2007 by upholding the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and liability. Therefore, he prays for allowing these appeals by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal accordingly.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer of car. He alternatively submits that the car being insured under Act policy, it does not cover the risk of inmates and the driver. Therefore, he prays for allowing these appeals.
5. After going through the judgment and award made by the Tribunal in MVC No. 5003/2004 and the judgment passed in M.F.A No. 7713/2007 disposed of on 24.08.2007 by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the findings of the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and liability, learned counsel for KSRTC does not dispute the said factual position, but he only submits that in the case of the claim petition of the driver, the liability of KSRTC may be limited to 50%.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are planed on record.
7. In view of disposal of M.F.A No. 7713/2007 by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the findings of the Tribunal in MVC No. 5003/2007 wherein it was held that the accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus by its driver, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC that, the driver of the car having not preferred separate appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in his claim petition MVC No. 3993/2004 holding the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of 50% on the part of the bus driver and 50% on the driver of the car and therefore, it is rejected.
8. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgments and awards of the Tribunal are modified in so far as it's findings on negligence and liability and it is held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of KSRTC bus by its driver as has been held in MVC No. 5003/2004 by MACT (SCCH-17) and confirmed in M.F.A No. 7713/2007 by the Division Bench of this Court.
9. Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
10. It is further made clear that the claimants in all these cases are entitled to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with up to date interest from the KSRTC.
11. The KSRTC is directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants with interest within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.