1. These three appeals have arisen out of the two awards from the claims of same accident.

1-a. The injured claimant by name K. Lokaiah, the pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 L 1740 filed O.P. No. 174 of 2007 filed u/sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) initially and later amended to Section 166 of the Act, on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge at Tirupati (for short ‘Tribunal’) against the owner and Insurer of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP03 V 9516 and 9517 for a claim of Rs.3,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him while proceeding on the motor cycle supra being ridden by G. Subramanya Raju (deceased) caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said tractor and on contest, the tribunal by its award dated 23.10.2009 granted compensation of Rs.57,000/- with interest at 6%p.a. by fixing liability against both the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, preferred the appeal MACMA No. 332 of 2010 with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the tribunal ought to have calculated the loss of earning power on the basis of the loss of income as per percentage of 25% permanent disability certified by the P.W.2 and also in the absence of rebuttal evidence, that the tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 doctor who certified Injury No. 1 is grievous and underwent a surgery and screw was fixed and therefrom the claimant cannot run and jump and he gets pain while walking and the same disables the claimant from carrying out avocation as contractor and the tribunal ought to have awarded the amount to the extent of 25% suffered by him, and the amount awarded is utterly low to enhance.

1-b. Whereas, the claimants, none other than wife, two major daughters of the deceased by name G. Subramanyam Raju filed O.P. No. 175 of 2007 for a claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, which on contest the tribunal dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred the appeal in MACMA No. 365 of 2010 with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the tribunal failed to see that the R.W.2 driver of the tractor categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the accident arose on account of his negligence, that the tribunal ought to have believed the version of P.W.2 Lokaiah-the claimant in O.P. No. 174 of 2007 who clearly narrated circumstances under which Ex.B.1 complaint was given and in that regard only he filed a private complaint which was registered as Cr. No. 18 of 2016 and the tribunal dismissed the claim by giving undue importance to the opinion formed by the police, hence to set aside the award by allowing the appeal by granting compensation as prayed for.

1-c. The 2nd respondent-Insurer of the alleged tractor supra belongs to the 1st respondent of the claim petition O.P. No. 174 of 2007 (in O.P. No. 175 of 2007 also the self-same Insurer) preferred MACMA No. 440 of 2010 with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the claim is untenable, baseless and the accident is result of negligence of rider of the bike and in Cr. No. 3 of 2016 police filed final report against the deceased Subramanya Raju as accused since died closed and the first claimant of O.P. No. 175 of 2007 being wife of deceased filed a private complaint that was forwarded to the police who registered Cr. No. 18 of 2016 and after investigation referred as false thereby the driver of the tractor and trailer no way at fault and the claims are liable to be dismissed.

2. The factual matrix is that on 10.01.2006 while the deceased G. Subramanyam Raju, as a rider along with his friend Lokaiah (claimant in O.P. No. 174 of 2007) as a pillion rider were going on a Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle supra on the extreme left side and when they reached near Vethala Thaduku village, Narayanavanam Mandal, at about 2.00 A.M., the tractor supra being driven by the rash and negligent driving of its driver dashed to the motor cycle, due