(R. Kantha Rao, J)

These two appeals arise out of the award, dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in O.P.No. 438 of 2002.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3600 of 2005 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, Proddatur, Kadapa District, which was figured as 4th respondent before the Tribunal below. Whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.1422 of 2006 is filed by the National Insurance Company, Secunderabad, which was figured as second respondent before the Tribunal below.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the award in relation to one and the same accident and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposing of two appeals may be stated as follows:

5. The respondents 1 to 5 hereinafter referred as claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,0000/-on account of the death of B.P. Deepak Reddy in a motor accident occurred 29.05.2002. According to them, while the deceased, a Z.P.T.C. member was returning to Mydukur in the car bearing No. APD-1837 after attending Mahanadu on 28.05.2002 at about 2.30 a.m., the car dashed against the tractor bearing No. AP-21-T-4389 and trailor bearing No. AP-21-T-4390 which was coming in the opposite direction. The deceased received severe injuries and died thereafter in consequence of the said injuries on the spot. According to the claimants, the owners of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.

6. The 1st respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) is the owner of the tractor and the said vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)on the date of the accident. The third respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)is the owner of the car and the said vehicle was validly insured with the 4th respondent (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)on the date of the accident. The respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002)attributed the rash and negligent driving to the driver of the car; whereas the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) attributed rash and negligent driving to the driver of the tractor. The learned Tribunal upon considering the material on record, held that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability at 25% and 75% holding that the respondents 1 and 2 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 25% and the respondents 3 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 75%. The said finding is challenged by the respondents 2 and 4 (in O.P.No.438 of 2002) in both the appeals filed by them.

7. The learned Tribunal considering the factors viz. the deceased was aged 40 years on the date of his death, was an agriculturist and was also doing different kinds of business, considered his income at Rs.11,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier 15, as per Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarded compensation of Rs.13,45,000/-. The appellants in both the appeals filed petitions before the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, sought permission to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the insured without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

9. In the appeals, the appellant-insurance companies contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and out of proportion. They sought to reduce the compensation amount by awarding the compensation, which is just and reasonable.

10. The claimants on the other hand contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal being just and reasonable and strictly consideri