These two civil miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short), one filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company and the other by the claimants arise out of an award dated 13.12.2013 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The parties in these appeals shall hereinafter be referred to as the claimants, the owner-cum-insured of the crime vehicle and the insurance company for convenience and clarity.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. None appeared for the owner/insured as no notice was served on him; and both the learned counsel had stated that in these appeals, no notice is necessary to the said respondent, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others.

4. I shall first advert to the contentions of both the sides in these two appeals to underscore the scope and ambit of the contentions and then precisely deal with the relevant issues involved in the appeals.

5. The claimants had filed their appeal being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them. The insurance company had filed its appeal raising broadly two issues, namely, one concerning the negligence and the other concerning the excess award of compensation and its liability to pay the same.

6. Accordingly, it is necessary to only deal with the following principal issues which fall for determination in these appeals.

1) Whether, as contended by the claimants, the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in the death of the wife of the 1st claimant solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration Number AET 9365, by its driver?

2) Whether, as contended by the insurance company, the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP 11 P 3018 by its driver?

3) Whether the accident was due to the contributory/composite negligence of the drivers of both the said lorry and the motor cycle as alternately contended by the insurance company?

4) Whether the compensation awarded is not a just and fair compensation? And, if so, what shall be the just and fair compensation to be awarded to the claimants?

5) To what relief?

7. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7. (a) The case of the claimants in regard to the manner of accident is that on 05.07.2011 at about 9.30 AM, while the 1st claimant and the deceased were travelling from Meerpet to Shakthinagar on a motor cycle being driven slowly by the 1st claimant on the left side of the road, and on the way, when they had reached Balaji Marble Shop, one lorry bearing Registration No. AET 9365 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and had dashed their motor cycle and as a result, the 1st claimant and the deceased fell down and had sustained injuries and that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital and that on a report, the Station House Officer, Meerpet Police Station had registered a case in Crime No.324 of 2011 against the driver of the lorry for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. Per contra, the defence of the insurance company is in the nature of general denial. Its specific case is that the police had registered a case against the driver of the lorry and that as the accident had occurred due to sole/contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the claim against the company is not maintainable and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor cycle and that the claimants are