R.Kantha Rao, J.

These two appeals have been filed challenging the award dated 18.04.2006 passed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.361 of 2002.

Wife and four children of the deceased B.Satyanarayana Siddhanthi filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.41,10,280/- on account of the death of B.Satyanarayana Siddhanthi in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.05.2001 near Narketpally of Nalgonda District.

The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim passed an award for an amount of Rs.13,70,000/- granting subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.

Challenge to the award by the claimants in MACMA No.1661/06 is regarding the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and not computed in accordance with the principles applicable for computation of compensation. Whereas, MACMA No.2535 of 2006 has been filed by the second respondent/insurance company challenging the award on the grounds viz. that the Tribunal ought not to have held that hte appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation since the offending vehicle was insured under the ‘Act only policy’ and under private car category which was hired by the deceased at the time of the accident, the tribunal erred in holding that the claimants 2, 4 and 5 who are the major son and married daughters respectively are dependants of the deceased entitled to claim compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident and also that the compensation granted is highly excessive and not in accordance with law.

We have heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (claimants) in M.A.C.M.A.No.1661 of 2006 and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2535 of 2006.

The questions of fact and law arise for determination being common in respect of the same accident and between the same parties, these two appeals are disposed of by the following common order.

The facts which are not in dispute are that B.Satyanarayana Siddhanthi, hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' was aged 49 years on the date of his death, died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP-24-D-0999 and the deceased was working as Stapathi in the cadre of Executive Engineer in the Endowments Department who had fair chances of further promotion. The offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-24-D-0999 was insured under act only policy with the Oriental insurance Company and under private car category.

The following are the disputed questions which arise for consideration in these appeals:

1) Whether the appellant insurance company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2535 of 2006 can be fastened with liability to pay compensation?

2) Whether the compenation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is just and reasonable?

POINT NO.1:

Although several decisins have been relied upon by the learned counsel, we wish to refer to a few decisions which laid down the law on the subject in clear terms. It is true that in the present case there is evidence adduced by the claimants which reveals that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. Therefore, for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle which resulted in the accident primarily the driver of the offending vehicle is liable and the owner of the vehicle is also vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The crucial issue is whether the insurance company i.e. the appellnt in M.A.C.M.A.No.2535 of 2006 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased in terms of Section 147 of the M.V.Act and under terms and conditions of the police-Ex.A.37 under which the offending vehicle was insur