JUDGMENT : The present appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and award dated 01.12.2010 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi and another judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court –II and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (henceforth both are referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for brevity) as shown in the table below: Sl. No. MFA No. MVC No. Passed by 1. 20560/2011 1541/2006 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Belagavi 2. 20561/2011 1542/2006 - do - 3. 20562/2011 1543/2006 - do - 4. 20563/2011 1544/2006 - do - 5. 20565/2011 1546/2006 - do - 6. 20566/2011 1547/2006 - do - 7. 20567/2011 1549/2006 - do - 8. 20361/2011 3384/2005 Fast Track Court-II & Member, MACT, Belagavi 9. 20306/2011 3384/2005 - do - 2. Among the above appeals, MFA Nos.20560/2011, 20561/2011, 20562/2011, 20563/2011, 20565/2011, 20566/2011, 20567/2011 and 20361/2011 have been filed by the claimants before the Tribunal seeking enhancement of the compensation and to hold the respondents as liable to pay the said compensation, whereas MFA No.20306/2011 has been filed by the Insurance Company which was one of the respondents before the Tribunal, seeking setting aside of the judgment and award under appeal. Except MFA No.20306/2011 and MFA No.20361/2011, remaining MFAs have arisen out of a common judgment and other two MFAs have arisen out of another judgment. However, all these appeals are with respect to a same road traffic accident said to have been occurred on 11.11.2005 involving a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-4230. As such, all these matters are connected and heard together and being taken up to pass a common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with the ranks they were holding in the Tribunal. 4. Except MFA Nos.20306/2011 and 20361/2011, in all other appeals, the appellants have taken a similar contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager, as such, deserves to be enhanced. During the pendency of those appeals, the appellants in those appeals by way of additional grounds have also taken a contention that, with respect to the very same accident, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has satisfied the awards passed in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 335/2005 passed by the MACT at Bagalkote. During the pendency of those appeals, the appellants in those appeals by way of additional grounds have also taken a contention that, with respect to the very same accident, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has satisfied the awards passed in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 335/2005 passed by the MACT at Bagalkote. As such, the very same Insurance Company, with respect to the very same accident, now cannot disown its liability to pay compensation to the entitled claimants in these cases. The appellant in MFA No.20361/2011 in his memorandum of appeal has stated that the Tribunal has erred in taking his monthly income at a lower amount and also has erred in awarding a meager compensation. MFA No.20306/2011 is filed by the Insurance Company, which in its memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that, in spite of it establishing in the Tribunal that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose for carrying the persons for hire and reward, the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon it. 5. The records pertaining to the matters were summoned from the Tribunal and are placed before this Court. Heard the arguments from learned counsel from both sides, perused the materials placed before this Court including the judgments and awards under appeals and also the lower Tribunal records. 6. In the light of the above, two points arise for my consideration. The first point is with respect to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants in these appeals. The second question is with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants as an indemnifier to the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. 7. Except MFA No.20306/2011, remaining all the appeals being the claimants’ appeals, the date, time, place and manner of occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The appellant in MFA No.20306/2011 has also not disputed the date, time, place and manner of occurrence of accident. As such, the said aspect of date, time, place and manner of occurrence of the accident need not be reanalyzed in these appeals. The appellant in MFA No.20306/2011 has also not disputed the date, time, place and manner of occurrence of accident. As such, the said aspect of date, time, place and manner of occurrence of the accident need not be reanalyzed in these appeals. However, for the better understanding of the facts of the case, the summary of the case of the claimants in the Tribunal is that, on the date 11.11.2005, while all the claimants along with other persons were traveling in a Tempo Trax Cruiser motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-4230 from Hosur to Goa, at about 3.30 am, near Madigunji village on National Highway No.IV-A road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver, the vehicle dashed to a road side tree resulting in accident, in which all the claimants in these appeals and other inmates in that vehicle sustained injuries. Each of the claimants in all these appeals describing the nature of the injuries said to have been suffered by them and the consequences of those injuries, claimed different quantum of compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 in the Tribunal, who were the owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle respectively. Under the impugned judgment and awards, all the claim petitions of the claimants were allowed in part. In MVC No.3384/2005 (from which MFA No.20361/2011 has arisen), the second respondent – Insurance Company was held liable and directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount, whereas with respect to the other claim petitions, which are under consideration in the respective appeals, though the claimants were held to be entitled for compensation, however, only the respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, was directed to deposit the compensation amount. As such, it can be inferred from that judgment that the insurer was exonerated from its liability to pay compensation under those claim petitions. It is against all these judgments and awards passed by the respective Tribunals, the appellants have preferred these appeals. MFA No.20306/2011 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in MFA No.3384/2005 and seeking discharge from its liability towards the claimant therein. 8. It is against all these judgments and awards passed by the respective Tribunals, the appellants have preferred these appeals. MFA No.20306/2011 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in MFA No.3384/2005 and seeking discharge from its liability towards the claimant therein. 8. In view of the undisputed fact that all the claimants in these cases were traveling in the offending motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-4230 at the time of accident and have sustained injuries for no fault of them, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle, the claimants in all these cases are entitled for compensation. 9. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the appeals filed by the claimants are being considered at the first instance. In all the appeals filed by the claimants, since the claimants could not establish their alleged quantum of income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, considering the fact that the co-ordinate benches of this Court are taking the notional income for the said relevant year 2005 at Rs.3,500/- per month, in all these cases, wherever the income of the injured is to be taken into consideration, the same is taken at Rs.3,500/- per month. i. With respect to MFA No.20560/2011 (MVC No.1541/2006), the wound certificate at Ex.P13 coupled with the evidence of the claimant therein go to show that, the claimant had sustained 3 simple injuries in the accident. The discharge summary card at Ex.P14 also corroborates the same. The said hospital card further shows that the injured was treated as an inpatient for three days from 11.11.2005 to 13.11.2005. Considering this, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,000/-. However, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of the treatment as an inpatient in the hospital and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said global compensation requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. ii. Considering this, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,000/-. However, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of the treatment as an inpatient in the hospital and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said global compensation requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. ii. With respect to MFA No.20561/2011 (MVC No.1542/2006), the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as below: Amount (Rs.) Towards Pain and Suffering 25,000.00 Towards Medical Expenses 2,000.00 Towards Conveyance, Attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges 4,000.00 Towards Loss of earning during treatment 12,000.00 Towards Loss of amenity 10,000.00 Towards Loss of earning due to disability 1,13,400.00 Total 1,66,400.00 The evidence of the claimant in that matter coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P15 and the discharge summary issued by the hospital which is at Ex.P16 go to show that the claimant had sustained two simple injuries and also the fracture of mid shaft of right tibia and fracture of distal end of left tibia. He was also treated as an inpatient for a month’s period from 11.11.2005 to 14.12.2005. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount when considered in the light of the duration of inpatient period and the nature of the injuries, I enhance the said compensation by a sum of Rs.4,000/-. A sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded towards ‘Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges’ also deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/- in the light of nature of injuries and the duration of treatment taken by the injured. After observing that the injured has lost the income for a duration of four months while under treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.12,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. However, in the light of the claimant’s monthly income is now taken at Rs.3,500/-, the difference of amount would be Rs.2,000/-, which I enhance under the said head. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenity’. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 21% has arrived at Rs.1,13,400/-. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenity’. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 21% has arrived at Rs.1,13,400/-. PW11, the doctor has opined the percentage of disability on the higher side. However, for restricting it to 21% to the whole body, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in which I do not want to interfere. As such, retaining the same percentage of disability, recalculation of compensation under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’ by taking the enhanced income would come at Rs.3,500 x 12 x 15 x 21/100 = Rs.1,32,300/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,13,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.18,900/-. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20561/2011 (MVC No.1542/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.34,900/-. iii. In MFA No.20562/2011 (MVC No.1543/2006), the records show that the claimant had sustained only one simple injury in the form of cut lacerated wound over forehead and a small injury on her stomach and right hand. Ex.P25 which is the wound certificate depicts the same. Considering this, the Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.2,000/-, which in my opinion is marginally on the lower side, as such, the same is enhanced by another sum of Rs.2,000/-. Barring this, the claimant therein is not entitled for a compensation under any other head. iv. In MFA No.20563/2011(MVC No.1544/2006), the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as below: Amount (Rs.) Towards Pain and Suffering 25,000.00 Towards Medical Expenses 2,000.00 Towards Conveyance, Attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges 2,000.00 Towards Loss of amenity 25,000.00 Towards Loss of earning due to disability 31,200.00 Total 85,200.00 The evidence of the claimant in that matter coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P6 go to show that the claimant had sustained fracture of distal end of left radius ulna and right radius ulna. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, who is minor in age, I am of the view that the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount, when considered in the light of the nature of the injuries, I enhance the said compensation by another sum of Rs.4,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount, when considered in the light of the nature of the injuries, I enhance the said compensation by another sum of Rs.4,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards ‘Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges’ also deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.3,000/- in the light of nature of injuries and the duration of treatment taken by the injured. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenity’. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, considering the age of the injured, who was minor of 5 years old, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said notional income is required to be taken confining to the case on hand at Rs.30,000/- per annum, in which event, the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’ requires to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.31,200/-. Thus, in total, the claimant in MFA No.20563/2011 (MVC No.1544/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.43,200/-. v. In MFA No.20565/2011 (MVC No.1546/2006), the evidence of the claimant coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P36 and discharge summary issued by the hospital at Ex.P37 disclose that the claimant had sustained one simple injury in the form of abrasion below right knee. However, she was treated as an inpatient for 3 days from 11.11.2005 to 13.11.2005. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of a sum of Rs.3,000/, which in the circumstances of the case deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Barring this, the claimant therein is not entitled for compensation under any other head. vi. In MFA No.20566/2011 (MVC No.1547/2006), the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as below: Amount (Rs.) Towards Pain and Suffering 15,000.00 Towards Medical Expenses 2,000.00 Towards Conveyance, Attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges 2,000.00 Towards Loss of earning during treatment 9,000.00 Towards Loss of amenity 5,000.00 Towards Loss of earning due to disability 64,800.00 Total 97,800.00 The evidence of the claimant in that matter coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P4 and the discharge summary issued by the hospital which is at Ex.P6, go to show that the claimant had sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury. It discloses that there was dislocation of hip joint and was treated with POP. He was also treated as an inpatient for about 11 days from 11.11.2005 to 21.11.2005. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount, when considered in the light of the duration of inpatient period and the nature of the injuries, I enhance the said compensation by a sum of Rs.4,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards ‘Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges’ also deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.3,000/- in the light of nature of injuries and the duration of treatment taken by the injured. After observing that the injured has lost the income for a duration of three months while under treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.9,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. However, in the light of the claimant’s monthly income is now taken at Rs.3,500/- the difference of amount would be Rs.1,500/-, which I enhance under the said head. As the claimant has sustained fracture to hip joint, there will be discomfort in his regular work throughout his life. Hence I find it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Amenity’ by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 10% to the whole body and has awarded a compensation at Rs.64,800/- under the said head. Though the doctor has assessed the percentage of disability on the higher side, however, for restricting it to 10%, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in which I do not want to interfere. As such, retaining the same percentage of disability, recalculation of compensation under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’ by taking the enhanced income would come at Rs.3,500 x 12 x 18 x 10/100 = Rs.75,600/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.64,800/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.10,800/- under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20566/2011 (MVC No.1547/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.29,300/-. vii. After deducting a sum of Rs.64,800/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.10,800/- under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20566/2011 (MVC No.1547/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.29,300/-. vii. In MFA No.20567/2011 (MVC No.1549/2006), the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as below: Amount (Rs.) Towards Pain and Suffering 15,000.00 Towards Medical Expenses 2,000.00 Towards Conveyance, Attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges 2,000.00 Towards Loss of earning during treatment 9,000.00 Towards Loss of amenity 5,000.00 Towards Loss of earning due to disability 23,040.00 Total 56,040.00 The evidence of the claimant in that matter coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P38 and the discharge summary issued by the hospital which is at Ex.P39 go to show that the claimant had sustained one grievous and 3 simple injuries. She was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for 3 days from 11.11.2005 to 14.11.2005. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount, when considered in the light of the duration of inpatient period and the nature of the injuries, I enhance the said compensation by a sum of Rs.4,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards ‘Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges’ also deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.3,000/- in the light of nature of injuries and the duration of treatment taken by the injured. After observing that the injured has lost the income for a duration of three months while under treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.9,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. However, in the light of the claimant’s monthly income is taken at Rs.3,500/- the difference amount under the said head would be Rs.1,500/-. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenity’. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 4% to the whole body has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,040/- under the said head. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenity’. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 4% to the whole body has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,040/- under the said head. The document, particularly the wound certificate at Ex.P38 and discharge summary at Ex.P39 disclose that the claimant sustained fracture of left clavicle bone and also injury on head and back bone. The claimant in his evidence has stated that due to the accidental injuries she was not in a position to work. As such, she has to pull on her remaining life with the permanent physical impairment, which she has sustained. It is in this background that the evidence of the medical doctor as PW12 has to be appraised. The said witness has assessed the permanent physical disability of the injured at 18% to left upper limb. However, he has not mentioned the percentage of disability as applicable to the whole body. Still considering the medical documents and the evidence of the claimant as well that of the doctor, the percentage of disability requires to be taken in the circumstance of the case would be 6% to the whole body. Since the Tribunal has taken it at 4%, the quantum of compensation towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’ has to be recalculated as applicable to the percentage of disability at 6%. If it is done so, the compensation under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’ by taking the enhanced income would come at Rs.3,500 x 12 x 16 x 6/100 = Rs.40,320/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.23,040/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.17,280/- under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20567/2011 (MVC No.1549/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.30,780/-. viii. After deducting a sum of Rs.23,040/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.17,280/- under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20567/2011 (MVC No.1549/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.30,780/-. viii. In MFA No.20361/2011 (MVC No.3384/2005), the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as below: Amount (Rs.) Towards Pain and Suffering 35,000.00 Towards Medical Bills 2,382.00 Towards Loss of earnings due to disability 1,83,600.00 Towards Loss of earning during laid up period 1,000.00 Towards Diet and attendant charges 10,000.00 Towards Loss of amenities 10,000.00 Towards Conveyance charges 3,000.00 Total 2,44,982.00 The evidence of the claimant in that matter coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P7 and discharge summary shows that the claimant had sustained bilateral comminuted inter-trochanteric fracture and femur of both the hip joints. He was also operated on right femur and left hip joint and plates and screws were implanted on both the sides. Considering the nature of injuries, I am of the view that the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ being a marginal amount, when considered in the light of the nature of the injuries and the surgeries undergone by the claimant, I enhance the said compensation by a sum of Rs.3,000/-. I do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘diet and attendant charges’. Considering the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ also deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.5,000/-. After observing that the injured has lost the income while under treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. However, in the light of the claimant’s monthly income is taken at Rs.3,500/- the difference of amount would be Rs.2,500/-, which I enhance under the said head. Towards ‘loss of earning due to disability’, the Tribunal after taking the percentage of disability at 30% to the whole body has arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,83,600/-. PW2, the doctor has opined the percentage of disability on the higher side. However, for restricting it to 30% to the whole body, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in which I do not want to interfere. PW2, the doctor has opined the percentage of disability on the higher side. However, for restricting it to 30% to the whole body, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in which I do not want to interfere. As such, retaining the same percentage of disability, recalculation of compensation under the head ‘loss of earning due to disability’ by taking the enhanced income would come at Rs.3,500 x 12 x 17 x 30/100 = Rs.2,14,200/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,83,600/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.30,600/-. Further, considering that the claimant was operated two times on hip joints and was implanted with plates and screws, he need to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants, I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘future medical expenses’. Thus, in total, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20361/2011 (MVC No.3384/2006) is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.61,100/-. In all the above appeals, the enhancement awarded is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The second question is regarding the liability of the respondents to pay compensation. Admittedly, the first respondent Sri.Ramesh Basappa Biradar, being the owner of the offending vehicle is primarily liable to pay the compensation to the respective claimants with respect to the amounts awarded in favour of each of the claimants. The second respondent in all these appeals is the insurer of the offending motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 28/M-4230. In MVC No.3384/2005, the Tribunal has fastened the liability even upon the said insurer also. However, the said Insurance Company has challenged the said fastening of the liability upon it in MFA No.20306/2011. In all other MVCs from which connected MFAs have arisen, the Tribunal has not fastened the liability upon the insurer by giving a finding that, admittedly all the claimants in the respective claim petitions have clearly stated or admitted in their evidence that they were fare paid passengers in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is this finding, which the claimants/appellants in their respective appeals have challenged by raising additional grounds in their memorandum of appeals. 11. It is this finding, which the claimants/appellants in their respective appeals have challenged by raising additional grounds in their memorandum of appeals. 11. Except in MFA Nos.20361/2011 and 20306/2011, learned counsel for the claimants in all other appeals in his argument submitted that, with respect to the very same accident, the very same Insurance Company in three claim petitions bearing MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005, wherein the award has been passed by MACT at Bagalkote, has satisfied the award. As such, the very same Insurance Company in the present case cannot take a different stand seeking its exoneration from its liability, since it stands estopped. In his support, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in B. U. Chaitanya Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1423. The learned counsel for the claimant in MFA No.20361/2011 also supported the said argument and further submitted that, in his case the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the insurer also. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in all these appeals vehemently submitted that, in the light of the admissions on the part of several of the claimants that they were fare paid passengers in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, admittedly there is violation of condition of policy, as such, the insurer is not liable. The learned counsel for the insurer in MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters further submitted that, though the insurer has satisfied the award in three claim petitions decided at MACT, Bagalkote, the same was for the reason that by oversight the insurer had not taken the defence of violation of condition of policy, as such, could not lead evidence upon it. According to him, the award was satisfied for the reason that the quantum of the award was less than Rs.10,000/- in those matters. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in MFA No.20306/2011 in his argument submitted that, if there is violation of use of vehicle with respect to one passenger, then it is a violation of use of vehicle with respect to all. Further, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says that, if the vehicle is used for hire or reward against the condition of the policy, then the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Further, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says that, if the vehicle is used for hire or reward against the condition of the policy, then the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. As such, there is admitted violation of the condition of policy, which exonerates the insurer from his alleged liability. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the Insurance Company has not taken the plea of violation of condition of policy due to use of the vehicle for hire in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005, before the MACT, Bagalkote, if the said company does not take such a defence in the present matters, the company would be estopped. 12. It is not in dispute that with respect to the very same accident, apart from the claim petitions from which the Miscellaneous First Appeals have arisen under the present appeals, few more petitions were also filed at a different place called Bagalkote by few other injured claimants/dependants in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005. It is also not in dispute that all those three claim petitions were allowed in part by the Tribunal and the insurer therein was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants. Additional grounds raised by the appellants in MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters that among those three claim petitions the claimants in MVC No.333/2005 had preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA No.22112/2009 seeking enhancement of compensation, and that the said matter was settled in Lok Adalath by enhancement of compensation, by a further amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, is also not disputed by the Insurance Company herein. Therefore, it is not in dispute that with respect to the very same accident, the present Insurance Company has already satisfied three awards by admitting its liability. However, it is the case of the Insurance Company that by oversight it did not take the defence of alleged violation of conditions of policy in those matters, whereas it has taken such a contention in the present set of matters and established it. 13. No doubt, in MVC cases, from which MFA No.20560/2011 to 20567/2011 have arisen, and wherein common evidence were recorded by the Tribunal, the claimants have clearly admitted that at the time of accident, the claimants/injured/victims were traveling in the offending vehicle as fare paid passengers. 13. No doubt, in MVC cases, from which MFA No.20560/2011 to 20567/2011 have arisen, and wherein common evidence were recorded by the Tribunal, the claimants have clearly admitted that at the time of accident, the claimants/injured/victims were traveling in the offending vehicle as fare paid passengers. PW1, who is the appellant in MFA No.20566/2011 has stated in his cross-examination that, at the time of accident, 12 persons were traveling in the offending vehicle and each one of them had paid a sum of Rs.200/- as fare. He has also stated that they were traveling in the hired vehicle at that time. PW2, the appellant in MFA No.20560/2011, in his cross-examination in the Tribunal, apart from stating that there were 10 more passengers along with him in the vehicle, also has stated that he had paid a fare of Rs.250/-. PW3, the appellant in MFA No.20561/2011, has stated that at the time of accident, he was traveling in the offending vehicle by paying a fare of Rs.200/- and that there were 12 more passengers along with him. PW4, on his behalf and also on behalf of the minor claimant in MFA No.20562/2011, has stated that at the time of accident he was traveling in the offending vehicle along with his wife, daughter and that on behalf of all the three persons, he had paid a fare of Rs.500/-. PW5, the natural guardian of the minor claimant and the appellant in MFA No.20563/2011 has stated in his cross-examination that, at the time of accident his son was traveling in the offending vehicle by paying a fare of Rs.100/-. PW7, the appellant in MFA No.20565/2011 in her cross-examination has stated that at the time of accident, she was also traveling in that vehicle as a fare paid passenger by paying a sum of Rs.200/-. PW8, the appellant in MFA No.20567/2011 in her cross-examination in the Tribunal has stated that that she does not know as to how much fare was paid. However, her husband was with her in the vehicle and that he had paid money. Stating so, all these witnesses/claimants have categorically admitted that they were fare paid passengers. However, it is only the claimant in MFA No.20361/2011, who alone has denied the suggestion that he was a fare paid passenger. However, her husband was with her in the vehicle and that he had paid money. Stating so, all these witnesses/claimants have categorically admitted that they were fare paid passengers. However, it is only the claimant in MFA No.20361/2011, who alone has denied the suggestion that he was a fare paid passenger. Therefore, even if it is taken that the claimant in MFA No.20361/2011 was not a fare paid passenger, still the proven fact remains that all other claimants in the remaining MFAs were all fare paid passengers as at the time of accident. In this light of the facts and circumstances, the alleged liability of the insurer is to be analysed. 14. It is not in dispute that the alleged offending vehicle was a private vehicle and there was a bar under the Insurance Policy to use the vehicle for hire or reward. That being the case, if the vehicle is found to be for hire or reward at the time of accident, the insurer can be exonerated from its liability as per Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, in the instant case, the insurer cannot be discharged in simpliciter for the reason that the very same insurer in three more similarly placed claim petitions in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005 which were decided by MACT, Bagalkote has satisfied the award. In MVC No.333/2005, against which the appeal in MFA No.22112/2009 was preferred, the matter was settled in Lok Adalath with an enhancement of Rs.2,80,000/-. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the insurer satisfied those awards only because the quantum of awarded amount was less than Rs.10,000/- is not proved to be correct. Whatever may be, the fact remains that the insurer in three cases arising out of the very same accident has satisfied the award. 15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company in his argument relied upon a judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Akkavva and another reported in 2008 ACJ 508 , wherein after observing that the policy extended to the tractor and trailer in the accident was a package Insurance Policy, it was found that the said tractor and trailer was carrying 60-70 passengers at the time of accident. Ltd., Vs. Akkavva and another reported in 2008 ACJ 508 , wherein after observing that the policy extended to the tractor and trailer in the accident was a package Insurance Policy, it was found that the said tractor and trailer was carrying 60-70 passengers at the time of accident. Noticing that at the time of accident the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose and no permit was obtained for using the vehicle, as a transport vehicle to carry large number of passengers and also those alleged passengers/claimants were not found to be the employees of the insured on the vehicle, the Court held that there was violation of policy condition under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further held that the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the said decision applies in those cases where the insurer has not admitted his liability and not satisfied the award with respect to some other matters arising out of the very same accident. It is the presence of that element of satisfaction of some of the awards under the very same accident makes a deviation in the present case. As such, the said judgment would not enure to the benefit of the Insurance Company. 16. In B. U. Chaitanya’s case supra, dashing of a bus against the scooter had given rise to three claims. After finding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in causing the accident, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants in all the three claims and the claim petitions were allowed by a common judgment dated 31.07.2002. The Insurance Company had not challenged the judgment and award in one of the matters, rather it satisfied the award. However, it challenged the remaining two claim petitions. In this background, this Court observed that the Insurance Company was estopped from contending that it was not liable to pay compensation in the other two claim petitions. It is further observed that, it was well settled that once the Corporation had admitted the liability and paid the compensation in respect of some of the claim petitions, it cannot raise a different stand insofar as its liability is concerned in the other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, since the insurer is estopped from doing so. 17. 17. The present facts of the case though are similar to the B. U. Chaitanya’s case supra, the differentiating factor being in none of the claim petitions which has led to MFA Nos.20560/2011 to 20567/2011, the insurer was held liable. It was only in different set of claim petitions decided by a different Tribunal at Bagalkote, the insurer was held liable. However, the fact remains, that the insurer had not taken a stand of violation of condition of policy or had proved it before the MACT at Bagalkote in those cases. 18. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that it was not aware of the fact of alleged violation of the condition of policy, when it contested the matter before MACT at Bagalkote in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005 and that it came to know about the said violation only at a belated stage. PW1, who is the appellant in MFA No.20566/2011, in his cross-examination, apart from stating that there were 12 passengers along with him in the said vehicle, has also stated that each one has paid Rs.200/- as fare. That means, the said statement has been elicited in the cross-examination of the said witness by none else than the insurer himself. When the said witness has stated that every passenger had paid the fare, which includes those injured passengers who were the claimants in MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005 before the MACT, Bagalkote. As such, those claimants in those MVCs would not have stood on a different footing compared to the claimants in the present set of appeals excluding in MFA No.20361/2011. That being the case, it is not that it is only the claimants in MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters, who alone are the fare paid passengers resulting in violation of the condition of policy. This factor further corroborates by the evidences of RW1 – Mr. Kishor Yashawant Kulkarni, who is an Officer of the Insurance Company, who in his evidence in MVC cases, from which MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters have arisen, has stated that they have not taken any action with respect to violation of conditions policy in Bagalkote cases. It goes to show that the said Insurance Company was aware that even with respect to the claim petitions filed before MACT at Bagalkote there was violation of condition of policy. It goes to show that the said Insurance Company was aware that even with respect to the claim petitions filed before MACT at Bagalkote there was violation of condition of policy. On the other hand, the very same officer has also deposed as RW1 in MVC No.3384/2005 from which MFA No.20361/2011 and MFA No.20306/2011 have arisen. The said officer as RW1 in his examination-in-chief itself in the Tribunal, has in unequivocal terms stated that all those persons were traveling by paying fare, from Hosur to Goa, which clearly go to show that the insurer knew that all the passengers traveling in the alleged offending vehicle were fare paid passengers, as such, there was violation of condition of policy. In spite of that, the insurer has satisfied the award with respect to three claims petitions bearing MVC Nos.332/2005, 333/2005 and 334/2005 as observed above. In that manner, the insurer by his conduct has shown to the owner that he has ignored the violation of the terms of the policy and taken the liability to compensate upon its shoulder, thereby has indemnified the owner of the vehicle of his liability to pay the compensation to the claimants in three claim petitions at MACT, Bagalkote. Thus, the owner has altered his position and remained ex-parte in the Tribunal in all the MVC cases from which MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters have arisen. Thus, the said insurer is estopped from taking a different contention later on. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that failure on the part of the insurer to take a stand of its alleged non-liability would result in estoppel is not convincing and acceptable. 19. In this background, even though the insurer could able to establish in these set of MVC cases from which MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters have arisen that there was violation of condition of policy, but in view of the fact that the insurer had not taken such a stand in other set of claim petitions arising out of the very same accident, rather he has satisfied the award in those three matters, he is estopped and cannot be discharged from his liability towards the claimants in this batch of cases. It is also for the reason that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 insofar as the principles relating to payment of compensation to the injured/victims/dependents are concerned, is to be treated as a social beneficial legislation. As such also, the insurer cannot discriminate among the claimants indiscriminately by his act of satisfying some of the awards admitting its liability and opposing its alleged liability with respect to few other claimants, who also stand exactly in the similar position under the very same accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in MVC cases from which MFA No.20560/2011 and connected matters have arisen that the insurer was not liable is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 20. In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER : MFA Nos.20560/2011, 20561/2011, 20562/2011, 20563/2011, 20565/2011, 20566/2011 and 20567/2011 are allowed in part. The common judgment and award dated 01.12.2010 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgavi in MVC Nos.1541/2006, 1542/2006, 1543/2006, 1544/2006, 1546/2006, 1547/2006 and 1549/2006 are modified to the extent that the compensation awarded in those matters are enhanced as below: MVC No. Enhanced amount (Rs.) 1541/2006 5,000.00 1542/2006 34,900.00 1543/2006 2,000.00 1544/2006 43,200.00 1546/2006 1,000.00 1547/2006 29,300.00 1549/2006 30,780.00 In the above MVC cases, along with respondent No.1, the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, respondent No.2 – Insurance company is also jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest thereupon within two months from the date of this order. MFA No.20361/2011 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.3384/2005 is modified to the effect that the compensation awarded therein is enhanced by a sum of Rs.61,100/-. The enhancement awarded in all these appeals are in addition to the compensation awarded in respective MVC cases by the respective Tribunals above. Rest of the terms of the awards in all these appeals with respect to awarding interest, its rate, terms regarding the release of the amount/deposit, apportionment of the amount, shall all remain unaltered. MFA No.20306/2011 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Draw modified awards accordingly.