JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. These four appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 19th March 2012 passed by the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH 6). The tabular representation of the appeals filed, MVC numbers, death/injury, compensation awarded by the learned Member are as under:- MFA No. and preferred by whom MVC No. and date of disposal Death or injury Result 6005/2012 Claimants 9873/2008 19/3/2012 Death of minor son Prasanna Allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- 6007/2012 Claimants 9875/2008 19/3/2012 Injuries to Chinnamma Allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- 6006/2012 Claimant 9874/2008 19/3/2012 Injury to Shashikala Allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.57,000/- 6004/2012 Claimant 9872/2008 19/3/2012 Death of H.K. Naraya naswamy Allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- 2. In all the four cases, appellants are the claimants. In MFA Nos. 6004/2012 and 6005/2012 claimants are the dependants by virtue of the death of Sri. H.K. Narayana Swamy and Minor Prasanna. In MFA Nos. 6006/2012 and 6007/2012, claimant Shashikala and Chinnamma are the injured persons. All are inmates of the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA.06.M.2588 belonging to 3rd respondent-Sri. Munivenkataswamy and insured with 4th respondent- New India Assurance Company Limited. 3. The happening of the accident as reflected from the record is, that on 15.10.2008 at 9.30 p.m., H.K. Narayana Swamy, his wife Smt. Shashikala, son Prasanna, his mother Smt. Chinnamma and others were proceeding to Mantralayam from Handenahalli in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA.06.M.2588 belonging to 3rd respondent. When they were proceeding on National High way No.7 at Sadali cross, Chikkaballapur Taluk, the driver of Tata Sumo was not able to notice and locate the parking of heavy goods vehicle Lorry bearing Registration No. HR.38.D.8443 4. The owner of the Lorry is M/s. D.R.S. Transport Private Limited and insurer is Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited the said lorry was parked without switching on the parking lights and without keeping indications like stones, branches of tree etc. Because of which, H.K. Narayana Swamy died on the spot whereas Prasanna died in NIMHANS and Shashikala and Chinnamma suffered injuries. A case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of Tata Sumo. Before the Tribunal, claimants filed their petitions claiming compensation. 5. Respondents contested the matter by filing their written statements. 6. A case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of Tata Sumo. Before the Tribunal, claimants filed their petitions claiming compensation. 5. Respondents contested the matter by filing their written statements. 6. The learned Member adjudicated the matters on the aspects of accident, negligence, injury, death, dependency and entitlement of compensation and on the basis of oral evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and RWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P37 including FIR, statement, sketch, IMV report, discharge summary and related documents and Exs.R1 to 3 allowed the claim petitions in part, fixing the liability on the owner of the Tata Sumo, dismissing the petition against respondent Nos. 1.2 and 4 and granting compensation as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and awards, the claimants have presented these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Before adverting on the other aspects of the case, it is necessary to make a mention that it is said to be a family that was traveling in Tata Sumo consisting of its head H.K. Narayana Swamy, his wife Shashikala, Chinnamma, mother of deceased, Prasanna, son of Narayana Swamy and Krishnappa, father of deceased Narayana Swamy. Due to the impact of the accident, H.K. Narayana Swamy and Prasanna succumbed to the injuries. However, the family survived by Shashikala, Chinnamma, Krishnappa, father of the deceased and Shreya and Vidhya, daughters of deceased Narayana Swamy. 9. Learned counsel Sri. Jagadish G. Kumbar, appearing for the claimants/appellants in all the appeals would submit that, learned Member has allowed the claim petitions in part. However, saddled liability on the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA.06.M.2588 and 3rd respondent-Munivenkataswamy, owner of the said vehicle is held responsible to make good the compensation. Needless to say, the Insurance Company of the said vehicle was exonerated from satisfying the compensation. It is in these backgrounds, the learned counsel for appellants in all the cases would submit that the saddling of liability to satisfy the compensation exclusively on the owner of Tata Sumo is not supported by any valid reasons and the legitimate right of the claimants are defeated inasmuch as they were made to loose dependency by virtue of the death of Narayana Swamy and face great tragedy due to the death of minor son Prasanna. 10. Learned counsel Sri. 10. Learned counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that in no way the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation as the accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA.06.M.2588. He also canvassed on the point that the HGV Lorry bearing Registration No. HR.38-D-8443 was stationed for justifiable reasons on the side of the road and the driver of Tata Sumo without applying his mind and without caring on the lives of the inmates of the Tata Sumo and also of himself rammed into the lorry thereby his negligence caused very dearer in the form of death of two persons including the minor boy and injuries to two ladies as stated above. 11. It is necessary to mention that, learned Member has assigned the reasons for saddling liability in para-17 of the judgment as under: "17. LIABILITY: By examining his official as RW1 and by producing the copy of the policy issued to the Tata Sumo, respondent No.4 has shown that it has issued liability only policy as per Ex.R1. In para 5 of his examination in chief, RW1 specifically stated that since the Ex.R1 is not a package or comprehensive policy it is not liable to indemnify the insured for the death or the injury caused to the occupants of the aid private vehicle. A admittedly, this evidence of RW1 is not challenged by the petitioners, rather they did not like to cross examine the said witnesses. Moreover, schedule of theEx.R1 shows that no premium was paid towards covering the risk of occupants of the vehicle. It being a private vehicle, as mentioned in the complaint itself respondent No.3 gave it on hire basis. Therefore, not only for contravening the policy conditions even for non covering of the risk of the occupants of the vehicle, the respondent No.3 alone is liable to pay the above sums. I would like to substantiate my this finding with the decisions referred above. It appears that the said respondent No.3 has no grievance as such he did not lie to contest he matter nor cross examined the RW1. Lastly, as I have held the said accident was because of he negligence of the Tata Sumo driver, owner and insurer of the HGV are not liable nor they are necessary parties. It appears that the said respondent No.3 has no grievance as such he did not lie to contest he matter nor cross examined the RW1. Lastly, as I have held the said accident was because of he negligence of the Tata Sumo driver, owner and insurer of the HGV are not liable nor they are necessary parties. Thus, I conclude that respondent No.3 shall pay the above compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the dates of respective petitions till their complete payment." 12. But on careful perusal of the same, the learned Member in his discussion has not assigned any reasons whatsoever which made him to come to a conclusion to attribute negligence on the Tata Sumo. That is not fair. Because, after going through the relevant materials on record, it emerges that the "driver of Tata Sumo was not able to notice and locate the parking of heavy goods vehicle bearing Registration No.HR.38.D.8443 and while avoiding on coming vehicles because of high beam lights dashed against the lorry and the said lorry was parked there without switching on the parking lights and without keeping indications like stones, branches of tree etc." 13. Insofar as the negligence is concerned, as pointed out in umpteen number of cases, it is a breach of legal duty to take care of oneself or others which is a state of mind, and indifferent attitude. In the circumstances, there cannot be a sole determining factor to adjudicate the negligence in all the times to come. In the instant case a criminal case came to be filed against the driver of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA.06.M.2588 after investigation. Thus, the observation that to avoid other on coming vehicle because of high beam lights and not switching on the parking lights without keeping indications etc., become insignificant factors, in assessing negligence. The learned Member is exclusively guided by the conclusion drawn by the investigating officer and finally holds that the driver of the Tata sumo is negligent in driving his vehicle, which in my firm view, absolutely unreasonable and not warranted. The learned Member has not appreciated the facts in the light of the consequences and the statistics before him regarding the entire accident. 14. Insofar as liability aspect is concerned, whether it is the owner or insurer is not the point at this juncture. The learned Member has not appreciated the facts in the light of the consequences and the statistics before him regarding the entire accident. 14. Insofar as liability aspect is concerned, whether it is the owner or insurer is not the point at this juncture. But fixing the liability in entirety on the driver of Tata Sumo only is too harsh against the claimants who are not at any default. Thus, on considering the facts which are available and in the ordinary course of evidence, the ideal conclusion would have been 50% on each of the vehicles. But it is not followed. I firmly find that the claimants are put in the wrong side of the balance and their legal position is not properly analyzed. 15. In the matter of liability, it is stated that the liability is not saddled on the basis of the Insurance Policy that was not exhaustive in coverage and it was not a package or comprehensive policy. However, insofar as imposing the liability over the owner of the Tata Sumo is concerned, there is nothing this Court can do as the policy did not cover the liability to pay compensation to third parties as it was not a comprehensive or package policy. 16. Before going towards quantum of the compensation, it is necessary to mention that claimants are five in numbers they are the wife, children, and parents of deceased H.K. Narayanawamy. In MVC No.9872/2008 the claimants have filed the claim petition in the capacity of dependants of H.K. Narayana Swamy, more particularly, Shashikala is the widow, Chinnamma and Krishnappa as the parents and Shreya and Vidhya are the daughters. In sofar as MVC No.9873/2008 is concerned, minor Prasanna who was aged about 8 years died and the claimant is the mother, Shashikala. In the circumstances, it is to be seen that the claim of mother for full compensation from the death of her husband and son, does not appear to be a proper phenomena. 17. Insofar as MVC No.9872/2008 (MFA No.6004/2012) which is in respect of death H.K. Narayana Swamy, husband of Shashikala is concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, towards loss of estate, towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and in all, Rs.5,75,000/-. 18. 17. Insofar as MVC No.9872/2008 (MFA No.6004/2012) which is in respect of death H.K. Narayana Swamy, husband of Shashikala is concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, towards loss of estate, towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and in all, Rs.5,75,000/-. 18. Considering the lower income at Rs.4,000/- per month invariably, the case would attract addition of 40% towards future prospects. Considering income at Rs.4,000/- per month, adding 40% (Rs.1,600/-) towards future prospects, total income would be Rs.5,600/- per month. Out of which, if 1/4th (Rs.1,400/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, his remaining monthly income would be Rs.4,200/- and Rs.50,400/- per annum. The multiplier applicable is 15'. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400/- x 15). 19. In the context and circumstances, Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.8,26,000/- (Rs.7,56,000/- + Rs.70,000/-). The enhancement would be Rs.2,51,000/-. 20. In the circumstances of the case, considering the compensation which the claimant Shashikala is going to get in MVC No.9873/2008, it is just and proper to confine her share of compensation in this case at 20%. Remaining 80% be apportioned in equal ratio of 1/4th among the children and the parents of the deceased H.K. Narayana Swamy. 21. Insofar as MVC No.9873/2008 (in MFA No.6005/2012) is concerned, it is in respect of the death of minor son Prasanna. In the context and circumstances of the case, global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded and there shall be an enhancement of Rs.2,89,000/-. 22. Insofar as MVC No.9874/2008 (MFA No.6006/2012) is concerned, it is in respect of injuries sustained by Shashikala and the compensation quantified is at Rs.57,000/-. In the accident, she has suffered following injuries: i. Lacerated wound over the right side of the forehead; ii. Complaint of right shoulder pain iii. Cerebral concussion and cervical sprin. The Doctor has deposed that injury No.3 is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple. 23. In the context and circumstances of the case, the global compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded. Thus, the enhancement would be Rs.3,000/-. 24. Insofar as MVC No.9875/2008 (MFA No.6007/2012) is concerned, it is in respect of injuries suffered by one Chinnamma and the Tribunal has awarded the global compensation of Rs.30,000/- which does not call for interference and the same is declared as global compensation. Thus, the enhancement would be Rs.3,000/-. 24. Insofar as MVC No.9875/2008 (MFA No.6007/2012) is concerned, it is in respect of injuries suffered by one Chinnamma and the Tribunal has awarded the global compensation of Rs.30,000/- which does not call for interference and the same is declared as global compensation. Hence, the appeal is rejected. 25. Insofar as the liability is concerned, it is settled at 50% each between both the vehicles. The exoneration of the Insurance Company of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA.06.M.2588 is maintained. The owner of the said vehicle is liable to satisfy 50% of the compensation awarded in all the cases. 26. Sri. O. Mahesh, the learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the name of the Insured is not forthcoming in the cause title of the claim petition though it is mentioned as DRS Transport Private Limited and it is not liable to indemnify the compensation amount and to that effect a specific stand is taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. 27. It is necessary to mention that the Insurance Company has taken such a stand, it is elementary to say that Insurance Company know about the proceeding is being initiated and in that proceeding this plea is raised and the same is not justifiable. Thus, the court finds these kind of defences are beyond the recognized zone of legality and I am of the firm view that the Insurance Company has taken a false and unjustifiable defence. 28. For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the claimants in MFA Nos.6005/2012, 6006/2012 and 6004/2012 are allowed in part. MFA No.6007/2012 filed by the claimant-Chinnamma is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 19.3.2012 passed by the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member MACT, SCCH 6 is proportionately set aside fixing liability in the ratio of 50% each on both the vehicles i.e. Lorry bearing Registration No.HR.38.D.8443 and Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA.06.M.2588 and by granting additional compensation as under: MFA NO. RESULT ENHANCEMENT 6005/2012 Allowed in part Rs.2,89,000/- 6007/2012 Dismissed NIL 6006/2012 Allowed in part Rs.03,000/- 6004/2012 Allowed in part Rs.2,51,000/- However, it is made clear that in MFA No.6004/2012, the share of Shashikala is confined to 20% only and remaining 80% be apportioned in equal proportion among the children and parents of deceased H.K. Narayana swamy. RESULT ENHANCEMENT 6005/2012 Allowed in part Rs.2,89,000/- 6007/2012 Dismissed NIL 6006/2012 Allowed in part Rs.03,000/- 6004/2012 Allowed in part Rs.2,51,000/- However, it is made clear that in MFA No.6004/2012, the share of Shashikala is confined to 20% only and remaining 80% be apportioned in equal proportion among the children and parents of deceased H.K. Narayana swamy. The owner of the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA.06.M.2588 and the Insurance company of the Lorry bearing Registration No.HR.38.D.8443 are directed to deposit the compensation amount in all the appeals in the ratio of 50% each with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.