A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are by the insurer against the common judgment and consequential awards passed in MVC No. 262/2003 dated 03.12,2005 by the learned member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City. The respondents in MFA No. 4437/2006 were the petitioners in MVC No. 262/2003. The appellant was the 1st respondent in the said claim petition. Respondents 2 to 5 had fited a claim petition under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, contending that, on 14.07.2002 at about 3:15 p.m p.m, when A. Dhanashekaran and his brother A. Rajashekaran were travelling in a car bearing registration NO. TN -67 -C -8898 from Aruppukotai to Toothukkudi, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver, the car dashed against the parked lorry No. TN -04 -E -2226 on Ettaiyapurum to Aruppulottal Road at S. Duraisamypurum junction and caused Injuries over the body of A. Dhanasbekaran and his brother A. Rajashekaran. In the said accident, A. Rajashekaran having sustained injuries, succumbed en the spot and his brother A. Dhanashekaran, having also sustained injuries, died on the way to the hospital. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents being the heirs and legal representatives of deceased A. Dhsnashekaran. filed the said petition for awarding of compensation.
(2.) THE respondents 2 to 6 in MFA No. 4438/2006 were the petitioners in MVC No. 263/2003. They had filed the said petition claiming compensation on account of death of A. Rajashekaran, on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The petitions were resisted by the appellant, by filing common written statement, denying all the averments made by the petitioners. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the car and even otherwise, the compensation claimed is excessive.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, tribunal framed issues regarding negligence, entitlement and quantum of compensation. Common evidence was recorded. The widows of the said deceased persons got themselves examined is PWs 1 and 2. Ex. P -1 to Ex. P -16 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Respondents did not lead any evidence.;