M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. These two appeals are filed by the second respondent-Insurance Company and the petitioners-claimants, separately, aggrieved by the impugned award dated 04.02.2011, passed in O.P. No.1327 of 2009, on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (For short, the Tribunal), whereunder the Original Petition filed by the petitioners-claimants was allowed, in part, awarding compensation of Rs.23,79,188/- against the original claim of Rs.30,00,000/-.

2. The appellant in M.A.C.M.A. No.2332 of 2011 was the second respondent-Insurance Company and appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.1898 of 2012 were the petitioners-claimants before the Tribunal in O.P. No.1327 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners-claimants filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For short, Act of 1988) claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-for untimely death of Yogender Kumar Rai (hereinafter referred to as Yogender), who is the husband of first petitioner, father of petitioners 2 to 4 respectively, in a road accident that occurred on 15.02.2009, at about 06:25 a.m. near Street No.8, Habsiguda Cross-roads, Hyderabad, while Yogender was returning to his home after attending Bandobast duty, due to visit of Home Minister, and regulating traffic standing by the side of road, one Skoda new car bearing temporary Registration No.AP 09 BN T/R 5591 (Hereinafter referred to as Car) driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner from Uppal side, proceeding towards Secunderabad side dashed one motorcycle bearing No.AP 24Q 6138, one Auto bearing No. AP 13X 3816 and, later hit Yogender; wherein, Yogender received fatal injuries all over his body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Car. Immediately, the accident was reported to Osmania University Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337, 338 and 427 of I.P.C. against the driver of Car. On account of untimely death of Yogender, first petitioner, being wife, petitioners 2 to 4 being children, lost their future dependency and earnings. The deceased Yongendar was aged 46 years, at the time of accident, working as Traffic Police constable with P.C. No.7490 of Kachiguda Division, East Zone, Hyderabad, earning an amount of Rs.18,000/-p.m. contributing the same for his family maintenance.

4. The first respondent being owner and insured and the second respondent being insurer of Car, and the liability under the policy was subsisting as on the date of accident, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, and prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-

5. First respondent, being owner of the Car, remained ex-parte.

6. The second respondent filed counter denying material allegations of the petition inter-alia contending that the accident not occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Car and that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident and thus, the driver of the Car violated terms and conditions of the Policy, thereby second respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

7. The second respondent, being insurer of Car, admitted about insurance of Car subject to certain limitations, exceptions, terms and conditions contained therein and subject to Section 64VB of Insurance Act, 1938 (For short, the Act of 1938), second respondent-Insurance Company issued policy No.OG-09-1801-1801-00054992 covering the risk for the period from 15.01.2009 to 14.01.2010. The second respondent-Insurance Company did not admit liability to pay compensation and that the Car was not registered permanently and it was plying on the roads without proper registration.

8. Petit