JUDGMENT : These two appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 30.01.2009 in MVC Nos.7908/2007 and 7925/2006 on the file of the XIX Addl. Small Causes Judge And Member, MACT, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity). 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder: The first respondent – claimant herein had presented a claim petitions under Section 163A of the MV Act seeking compensation for the death of his wife – Ratnamma and his daughter – Divya, in a road accident that occurred at 1.00AM on 25th November 2001. It is his case that on the said date when he along with his family members traveling in a Car bearing registration No.AP02 T5164, which was driven by himself. When their car, moving on Bangalore – Bellary Road, reached Kogilu Cross, a lorry bearing registration No.KA01 – 6619 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their Car. As a result, the first respondent sustained injuries and his wife and daughter succumbed to grievous injuries suffered by them. 3. It is the case of the claimant that he has spent huge money towards treatment of his wife and daughter, medical expenses, nourishment, food, conveyance and attendant charges besides other incidental expenses. The claimant had filed two separate claim petitions on account of death of his wife and daughter before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned common judgment and award awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,80,000/in MVC 7906/2006 and Rs.4,41,500/in MVC No. 7925/2006, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petitions till realization and directed the appellant – Insurance Company to pay the same. Since, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side, the appellant Insurance Company filed these appeals seeking to set aside the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing for appellant Sri L. Srikanta Rao, at the out set, submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding higher compensation. He submits that the policy issued by it is an Act policy and does not cover the liability of the inmates of the insured vehicle. The claimant admitted this fact and also the fact that they have not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the inmates. He submits that the policy issued by it is an Act policy and does not cover the liability of the inmates of the insured vehicle. The claimant admitted this fact and also the fact that they have not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the inmates. It is also submitted that the jurisdictional Police charge sheeted the petitioner for having committed an offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC r/w Sec. 188 of MV Act. He contends that, it is clear from the Police records that the petitioner – claimant himself was the tort feasor and responsible for the death of his wife and daughter. He contends from Ex. R1 it is clear that the claimant was driving the vehicle under the influence of Alcohol. On these grounds the learned counsel for appellant – Insurance Company submits that awarding compensation to the claimant by the Tribunal is oppose to law and liable to be set aside. 6. Though notice was served on respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, none appeared on behalf of them to defend their case. 7. A tort feasor, generally, is not entitle for compensation in respect of civil wrong. One should be free from culpable negligence or recklessness. No doubt, it is the case of the petitioner that a charge sheet is filed against him and that itself does not disentitle him for grant of compensation. In this connection, it has to be seen that the learned Member of the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant Insurance Company of the Car, which was driven by the petitioner. But, a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and it is proved that the petitioner drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and at that time he was intoxicated. As a result of reckless and negligent driving the accident occurred and wife and daughter of the petitioner succumbed to grievous injuries. 8. It is to be seen that the finding of the Criminal Court on the question of liability under Section 304A or 337 or 338 of IPC, to attribute that the offending vehicle invariably becomes liable through its owner or insured as the case may be. Neither the judgment of the Criminal Court has any consequence or binding on the Tribunal, but this is an unique case of its nature. Neither the judgment of the Criminal Court has any consequence or binding on the Tribunal, but this is an unique case of its nature. The respondents No.1 & No.2 are not represented nor placed appearance, besides service of notice. They remained absent. 9. The persons, who succumbed to the grievous injuries are wife – Rathnamma and daughter – Divya of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant was disentitle for compensation, in so far as the deceased spouse and daughter are concerned, as they were not passengers. 10. I am forced to focus my attention on the aspect of negligence and liability. In the present case, it cannot be forgotten that the claimants were granted compensation and the appellant – Insurance Company was directed to pay the same. In this connection, the negligence as discussed by me above is attributed to a person, who is the accused, it is nothing but a conclusion arrived by the Investigating Officer. 11. Firstly, the claimant took the car, in respect of which he had an Act policy, with six passengers. However, he had double responsibility of considering his wife and daughter also as inmates of the said car, he chose to drive the vehicle in the midnight at 1.00AM on the intervening night on 24/25.11.2001. Another allegation against him is that, when he was driving the vehicle he was drunken. Driving the car in the night after consuming alcohol and the same person claims compensation would clearly shows that he was a negligent driver and also negligent care taker of his family members. 12. The Tribunal granted compensation, even though the claims are under Section 163A of MV Act. Added to this the claimant – respondent herein, despite service of notice of these appeals has not chosen to place appearance or made provision for his representation. In the circumstance, the learned Member of the Tribunal has erred in calculating and assessing the compensation for a person, who disentitles himself for such compensation. The terms which come in the way of not granting compensation are arrogance, recklessness and the offending acts of the appellants. 13. Thus, the appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 30.01.2009 in MVC Nos.7908/2007 and 7925/2006 by the XIX Addl. Small Causes Judge And Member, MACT, Bangalore, is hereby set aside. The terms which come in the way of not granting compensation are arrogance, recklessness and the offending acts of the appellants. 13. Thus, the appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 30.01.2009 in MVC Nos.7908/2007 and 7925/2006 by the XIX Addl. Small Causes Judge And Member, MACT, Bangalore, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim petitions under Section 163A of MV Act stand dismissed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company.