JUDGMENT Ashok S. Kinagi, J. - This appeal is arising out of the judgment and award dated 22.09.2016 passed in MFA No.684/2014. 2. The appellant herein was the fifth respondent; the first to third respondents were the claimants; the fourth respondent is the first respondent and the fifth respondent is the second respondent; the sixth respondent is the third respondent; the seventh respondent is the fourth respondent and the eighth respondent is the sixth respondent before the learned Tribunal. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of the claimants is that on 6th January 2014 at about 3 p.m., the deceased Ganeshan was a pedestrian walking along the side of the road near Bommasandra and was about to cross the road. At that time, a car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said deceased. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years working as a mason and earning monthly income of more than Rs.10,000/-. The first respondent is the owner of the said vehicle. The second respondent issued a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. Hence the claimants have filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the first and second respondents, jointly and severally. The first respondent appeared and filed a written statement denying the entire case of the claimants and pleaded that the person driving the vehicle had a valid driving license and the said car was duly insured and therefore he claim that he is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. The second respondent filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and admits the policy in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 belonging to the first respondent and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Second respondent pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and baseless. The second respondent filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and admits the policy in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 belonging to the first respondent and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Second respondent pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and baseless. Second respondent further pleaded that the first respondent has not submitted any document for verification and the driver of the vehicle drew the same without having driving license at the time of the accident which is in contravention of the policy conditions and also the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is pleaded that the deceased was negligently walking in a zigzag manner in the middle of the road and came in front of the vehicle owned by the first respondent which was going on the road slowly and cautiously by observing the road rules and contributed the accident and the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased. But while lodging the complaint, the fact was twisted and lodged a false complaint stating that the vehicle was negligently driven by its driver. It's further pleaded that the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to indemnify the first respondent in any manner. The second respondent admits that the second respondent has assured comprehensive policy in respect of the vehicle owned by the first respondent. At the time of the accident, the said vehicle was used for the test drive. Hence the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and it is only the fifth respondent who is liable to pay the compensation based on the trade certificate insurance issued by the fifth respondent. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the second respondent. The fifth respondent was impleaded vide order dated 19th January 2015 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by the claimants. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the second respondent. The fifth respondent was impleaded vide order dated 19th January 2015 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by the claimants. The fifth respondent filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the car was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the said car and further pleaded that the fifth respondent has issued a policy in respect of the Trade Plate No.KA-51- TC-28/2014-15 vide policy in favour of the sixth respondent and the fifth respondent has not issued any policy in respect of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 and further pleaded that the fifth respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Hence he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The learned Tribunal based on the above said pleadings has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased Sri. Ganeshan? 2) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 by its driver and Sri. Ganeshan died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 4) What order? 5. The claimants in order to prove the contents of the claim petition, examined the first claimant as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P8. The sixth respondent examined its Customer Relation Manager as RW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to R3. The second respondent examined its Manager (Legal) as RW-2 and got marked a document at Ex.R4. The first to fifth respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf. Ex.P8 is marked with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence, has answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative; issue No.2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 partly in affirmative and allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.19,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment from the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has preferred this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. The fifth respondent aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has preferred this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent-appellant herein, Sri. Jwala Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-first respondent, Ms. Smitha & Swathi Manjunath, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent herein and Sri. A. N. Krishna Swamy, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent herein. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent-appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the fifth respondent. He further submits that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. He further submits that the fifth respondent has issued a policy in respect of Trade Plate No.KA-51-TC- 28/2014-15 in favour of the sixth respondent. He further submits that the fifth respondent has not issued any policy in respect of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409. The said fact has been overlooked by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the second respondent had admitted during the course of his cross-examination that if any accident is caused to a third person on the road, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the liability on the fifth respondent. He further submits that the fifth respondent has issued the policy in respect of the car in question and the fifth respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Hence he prays to dismiss the appeal and to buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Minu B Mehta & Another V. Balkrishna Ramachandra Nayan & Another, (1977) AIR SC 1248 (2) Pappu & Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another, (2018) AIR SC 592 (3) Ramkhiladi & Another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, (2020) ACJ 627 10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the claimants are interested in compensation and further he submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal may be ordered to be paid to the claimants. 11. Ltd. & Another, (2020) ACJ 627 10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the claimants are interested in compensation and further he submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal may be ordered to be paid to the claimants. 11. We have perused the records and the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. The points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the fifth respondent based on Motor Trade (Road Risk) Insurance Policy? (2) Whether the Learned Tribunal has award exorbitant compensation to the claimants? (3) Whether this court can modify the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC? (4) What order or award? 13. Point No.1: Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the sixth respondent is a dealer engaged in selling the cars and the sixth respondent being a dealer of cars, has insured the vehicle under reference with the fifth respondent under Motor Trade (Road Risks) Policy. The said insurance was in force with effect from 2nd September 2013 to 1st September 2014. In order to consider the risk covered under the Motor Trade (Road Risks) Policy, it is to be considered that a Motor Trade Insurance, also known as Road Risk Insurance is a policy designed to cover any injury, loss or damage to the third party caused by the vehicles involved in the business. This insurance is ideal to meet the business needs of individuals who are into the business of cars, motorbikes or are involved in buying and selling of cars, serving or running a garage, etc. The said policy covers or takes care of machinery replacement value to vehicle replacement, etc. The said policy also covers any loss, destruction or damage caused to the insured vehicle or its accessories by an insured event. But in case of death or bodily injury to any person due to alighting from the vehicle insured at the time of the incident will not be covered under this Insurance. 14. The first respondent has purchased the vehicle from the sixth respondent and got transferred the vehicle in his name and obtained the certificate of registration from the concerned RTO. The first respondent insured the vehicle with the second respondent. 14. The first respondent has purchased the vehicle from the sixth respondent and got transferred the vehicle in his name and obtained the certificate of registration from the concerned RTO. The first respondent insured the vehicle with the second respondent. The second respondent issued an insurance policy as per Ex.R4. At the time of the accident, the vehicle under reference was insured with the second respondent. The only contention taken by the second respondent was that the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the vehicle under reference was used for speed test. Thus, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. RW-2 has clearly admitted in the course of his cross-examination that it is not specifically mentioned in the police document that the vehicle met with an accident when it was taken for speed test and he admits that he has not produced any document and he further admits that they have not issued any letter or complaint to the police stating that the accident took place during the course of speed test. When the second respondent has failed to produce any material to show that the vehicle was used for speed test at the time of the accident, the said contention cannot be accepted. 15. As observed above, the Motor Trade (Road Risks) Policy is a policy which covers only replacement of accessories, destruction or damage caused to the insured vehicle. 16. It is relevant to examine certain provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the said Act of 1988') and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the said rules of 1989'). Sub-section 30 of Section 2 of the said Act of 1988 defines "owner" of the vehicle as a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. 17. Sub-Section (3) of Section 41 of the said Act of 1988 reads as under: "41 (3). 17. Sub-Section (3) of Section 41 of the said Act of 1988 reads as under: "41 (3). The registering authority shall issue to the owner of a motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government" Sub-section (1) of Section 140 of the said Act of 1988 reads as under: "140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault:- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section." 18. Regarding registration of Motor Vehicle i.e., Trade Certificate, Rule 35 of the said Rules of 1989 prescribes as under: "35. Grant or renewal of trade certificate:- (1) On receipt of an application for the grant or renewal of a trade certificate in respect of a vehicle, the registering authority may, if satisfied that the applicant is a bona fide dealer and requires the certificates specified in the application, issue to the applicant one or more certificates, as the case may be, in Form 17 [within thirty days from the date of receipt of such an application] and shall assign in respect of each certificate a trade registration mark consisting of the registration mark referred to in the notification made under sub-section (6) of section 41 and followed by two letters and a number containing not more than three digits for each vehicle." 19. Rules 39, 40 and 41 of the said Rules of 1989 are relevant which reads as under: "39. Use of trade registration mark and number:- (1) A trade registration mark and number shall not be used upon more than one vehicle at a time or upon any vehicle other than a vehicle bona fide in the possession of the dealer in the course of his business or on any type of vehicle other than the one for which the trade certificate is issued. 40. 40. Restriction on use of trade certificate or trade registration mark and number:- A trade certificate shall be used only by the person to whom it is issued and such person shall not allow or offer or cause the certificate or the number assigned in connection therewith to be used by any other person: Provided that the provision of this rule shall not apply where the person to whom the certificate is granted, or a person bona fide in his employment and acting under his authority, or any other person bona fide acting on behalf of the holder of a trade certificate is present in the vehicle, or if such vehicle is designed for use by only one person and is being used by a prospective purchaser of that vehicle for the purpose of reasonable test or trial. 41. Purpose for which motor vehicle with trade certificate may be used:- The holder of a trade certificate shall not use any vehicle in a public place under that certificate for any purpose other than the following:- (a) for test, by or on behalf of the holder of a trade certificate during the course of, or after completion of, construction of repair; or (b) for proceeding to or returning from a weigh bridge for or after weighment, or to and from any place for its registration; or (c) for a reasonable trial or demonstration by or for the benefit of a prospective purchaser and for proceeding to or returning from the place where such person intends to keep it; or (d) for proceeding to or returning from the premises of the dealer or of the purchaser or of any other dealer for the purpose of delivery; or (e) for proceeding to or returning from a workshop with the objective of fitting a body to the vehicle or painting or for repairs; or (f) for proceeding to and returning from airport, railway station, wharf for or after being transported; or (g) for proceeding to or returning from an exhibition of motor vehicles or any place at which the vehicle is to be or has been offered for sale; or (h) for removing the vehicle after it has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the financier due to any default on the part of the other party under the provisions of an agreement of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation." 20. The motor vehicle which is registered in the name of the owner of the said vehicle and further as per sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the said Act of 1988, when once the registering authority issues certificate of registration to the owner of the motor vehicle, from the date of issuing a certificate of registration the person who has got registered the vehicle in his name will be the owner of the motor vehicle. That sub-section (1) of Section 140 provides that where death or permanent of any person has resulted from the accident out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement. 21. In the present case, the first respondent has purchased the vehicle from the sixth respondent and the said vehicle was registered in the name of the first respondent and certificate of registration was issued as per sub-section (3) of Section 41. 22. The first respondent after purchasing the said vehicle got insured the vehicle with the second respondent. The second respondent has issued a comprehensive policy in favour of the first respondent in respect of the vehicle under reference. That as on the date of accident, the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The sixth respondent was not the owner as on the date of accident. The sixth respondent is not liable to pay compensation as per sub-section (1) of Section 140. 23. That as far as the Trade Certificate Insurance is concerned, sub-rule (1) of Rule 35 provides for grant or renewal of trade certificate. The said trade certificate will be issued to the bona fide dealer and further the use of trade registration mark and number Is concerned, subrule( 1) of Rule 39 provides that trade registration mark and number shall not be used upon more than one vehicle at a time or upon any other vehicles bona fide in possession of a dealer in the course of its business. 24. Restrictions has been imposed upon the use of trade certificate or trade registration mark and number under Rule 40 of the said Rules of 1989. 24. Restrictions has been imposed upon the use of trade certificate or trade registration mark and number under Rule 40 of the said Rules of 1989. Rule 41 imposes a restriction on the holder of trade certificate not to use the vehicle in a public place under that certificate for any purpose. Rule 42 provides that no holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to the purchaser without registration whether temporary or permanent. 25. The first respondent being the owner of the vehicle has not entered the witness box. The official of the sixth respondent was examined as RW-1 who states that the first respondent is the customer of sixth respondent. He has given his car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 for the purpose of servicing and he admits that the car is duly insured with the second respondent which is valid between 4th August 2013 to 3rd August 2014. The said car was driven by the personnel of the sixth respondent company who had a valid driving license. He further states that the sixth respondent had taken a temporary insurance on the said car with the fifth respondent company which was valid between 2nd September 2013 to 1st September 2014. He further states that the said vehicle is duly insured with the second respondent and the insurance was valid as on 6th January 2014. During the course of cross-examination he admits that the vehicle under reference was insured with the second respondent for the purpose of servicing the vehicle. The sixth respondent had taken possession of the said car at the time of the accident. He admits that all the vehicles are covered under the Trade Certificate Policy. RW-1 was further examined and he has produced insurance policy certificate issued by the National Insurance Company and the extract of the driving license of the personnel of the sixth respondent who was driving the car under reference at the time of accident and the said documents are marked as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. 26. The Manager (Legal) of the second respondent is examined as RW-2 who has deposed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased and he has further stated that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the first respondent and the said policy is a comprehensive policy which covers only under the limitations found in the policy. The said vehicle was used for test drive at the time of accident by the personnel of the sixth respondent and he further states that the sixth respondent has obtained a Trade Certificate bearing No.LA-51/TC/28/2013-14 from RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru. He further states that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The sixth respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. He has produced true copy of the insurance policy along with the terms and conditions which is marked as Ex.R4. 27. During the course of cross-examination he admits that the vehicle under reference was insured with their company and they have issued an insurance policy which is a comprehensive policy. He further admits that if any accident is caused to a third person on the road, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation subject to the terms and conditions. He denies that the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation in case any injury or death is caused to a third party on the road by the vehicle under reference. He admits that it is not specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet that the vehicle met with an accident when it was taken for the speed test and further he admits that he has not produced any documents. He further admits that he do not know the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the fifth respondent relating to the vehicle in question. He admits that at the time of accident, the insurance policy issued by their company was in force and he further admits that they have not lodged any complaint by stating that the alleged accident took place during the course of speed test. 28. In the present case, as observed above, the sixth respondent has already sold the vehicle to the first respondent and delivered possession of the said vehicle to the first respondent. The first respondent obtained a certificate of registration and also certificate of insurance from the second respondent. The sixth respondent was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Further, as observed above, the first respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The first respondent being the owner is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The sixth respondent was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Further, as observed above, the first respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The first respondent being the owner is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. As the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the second respondent shall indemnify the first respondent by paying compensation to the claimants. The fifth respondent is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal as the vehicle involved in the accident is covered under the Trade Certificate Policy. The said Trade Certificate Policy is applicable to the persons who are engaged in buying and selling the vehicles, etc. Hence the first and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The said fact has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the fifth and sixth respondents jointly and severally. In view of the above discussion, the first point is answered in the negative holding that the fifth respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 29. Point No.2: In support of the claim petition, claimant No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P8. PW-1 has stated that on 6th January 2014 at about 3 p.m., her husband-deceased Ganeshan was walking along the side of the road and at that time, a car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MF-8409 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. She has further stated that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident and he was working as a mason prior to his death and earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/- at Bengaluru under various contractors. Hence she prayed to allow the claim petition and requested to award compensation. 30. Hence she prayed to allow the claim petition and requested to award compensation. 30. Further the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of his death and the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased and further the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and added 50% as future prospects which comes to Rs.12,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and has awarded compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- under the other heads. Thus, in all, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,30,000/- to the claimants. 31. The learned Tribunal has taken Rs.8,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. As per the Schedule of the Legal Services Authority, in the year 2014, the average monthly income of a person was to be considered at Rs.8,500/- - 9,000/-. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income on a lower side and has added 50% towards future prospects, which is on the higher side, whereas the monthly income was to be taken at Rs.9,000/- and 40% was to be added towards future prospects which comes to Rs.3,600/-. As per the judgment in the case of SARLA VERMA & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 15'. Hence loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,600/- x 15 x 12 = 22,68,000/-. 32. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 33. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,38,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,30,000/- towards compensation which is on the lower side. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of payment. As the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation, it is appropriate that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in the negative. 34. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of payment. As the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation, it is appropriate that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in the negative. 34. Point No.3: In order to consider point No.3, it is necessary to consider Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the said Code') reads as under: 33. Power of Court of Appeal-- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees. Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order. The above provision provides that the Appellate Court can mould or modify the judgment of the Trial Court by exercising jurisdiction under the said provision. By order dated 21st September 2020, we had specifically put the parties to the notice that the Court may consider of exercising power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code. The appeal arises out of a claim application for compensation on account of a road accident. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the petitioners in the claim application get just and fair compensation. Moreover, the liability of the second respondent-insurer is statutory. It is bound to honour the award made against the insured. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise the power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code. Moreover, the liability of the second respondent-insurer is statutory. It is bound to honour the award made against the insured. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise the power under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code. Hence, we are inclined to modify the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the affirmative. 35. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent are not applicable to the present case on hand. The facts of the case in the aforesaid judgments are different from the case on hand. 36. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the first and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle in question was insured with the second respondent and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. 37. (1) The appeal is allowed in p; (2) The judgment and award dated 22nd September 2016 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH No.7) in MVC NO.684/2014, is modified; (3) We affirm the entire judgment except fastening the liability on the fifth and sixth respondents before the Tribunal; (4) We fasten the liability on the first and second respondents before the Tribunal, jointly and severally; (5) The second respondent before the Tribunal shall deposit the award amount along with interest within a period of two months before the Tribunal within two months from the date on which the judgment is web-hosted; (6) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant after the appeal period.