1) Aggrieved by the Award dated 05.01.2009 in O.P. No.445 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, MACT–cum–District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), claimants, who are parents and R.3 who is wife of deceased preferred M.A.C.M.A No.924 of 2009 and M.A.C.M.A No.3593 of 2009 respectively.

2) The facts in brief are that:

a) The claimants are parents and R3 is the wife of deceased—M.Srinivas. On the intervening night of 18/19.02.2004 when the deceased was proceeding on his lorry/truck bearing No. AP 01 T 8118 from Hyderabad to Mandamarri and when he reached Chagallu near Station Ghanpur on Hyderabad—Warangal road he lost control over the vehicle and hit a roadside tree resulting instantaneous death of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the offending lorry/truck belongs to the first respondent was insured with R2/ Insurance Company on the date of accident and the said policy covers the risk and hence, they are entitled to compensation. With these pleas, they filed OP No.445 of 2004 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime lorry and claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation under different heads. They added wife of deceased as R.3 on the plea that she refused to join them to file O.P.

b) First respondent remained ex parte.

c) R2–Insurance Company firstly denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It also denied the insurance of lorry/truck with it and urged to put the claimants to strict proof. It pleaded that the deceased had no valid driving licence and accident was occurred only due to the fault of the deceased himself and consequently neither the first respondent nor it is liable to pay any compensation. It also pleaded that the claimants ought to have filed claim for compensation before the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal and therefore, OP is not maintainable. Finally, it pleaded that claim is excessive.

d) Third respondent/wife in her written statement denied that she never refused to cooperate with the petitioners in filing OP. Her version is that claimants themselves did not cooperate with her and therefore, she filed Workmen’s Compensation Case No.14/20004 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal impleading them as respondents 3 and 4 in the said case. She pleaded that petitioners are not dependants of the deceased and they are not entitled to any compensation. She pleaded for dismissal of OP on the ground that her claim petition is pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.

e) PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.

f) On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It awarded Rs.1,25,663/- as compensation under different heads as follows:

Loss of earnings Rs.1,23,163/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.2,500/-

Total Rs.1,25,663/-

Hence the appeals:

1) MACMA No.924 of 2009 by the parents/ claimants challenging the quantum of compensation as inadequate and

(2) MACMA No.3593 of 2009 by R3/ wife.

3) Heard arguments of Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants in MACMA No.924 of 2009/ respondents 1 and 2 in MACMA No.3593 of 2009, Dr. Muddu Vijay, learned counsel for R.2—Insurance Company in MACMA No.924 of 2009/ respondent No.4 in MACMA No.3593 of 2009 and Sri I. Raja Mallaiah, learned counsel for R.3 in MACMA No.924 of 2009/ appellant in MACMA No.3593 of 2009. Notice to R.1 in MACMA No.924 of 2009/R.3 in MACMA No.3593 of 2009 was served but no representation and hence, treated as heard.

4) The parties in these two appeals are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.

5 a) Challenging the method adopted by the Tribunal for computation of compensation, the learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals firstly argued that when their claim is under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”), the Tribunal should not have computed compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act,