1. As the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

M.A. C.M.A. No.4669 of 2008 :

2. The appellant/1st respondent/owner of the bus, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 31.12.2007 in O.P.No.598 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-I Additional District judge, Karimnagar, preferred this appeal, besides other grounds, on the ground that the Tribunal erred while exonerating the liability of APSRTC and Insurance Company while fastening the liability against the appellant for payment of compensation to respondents 1 to 3/claimants.

3. The appellant contended that Ex.B2-policy was renewed by the 5th respondent as a continuation of the proposal form submitted in the year 2001 clearly indicating that the vehicle would be hired to the 4th respondent-RTC, therefore, the contention of the 5th respondent that the appellant had not intimated to the insurance company with regard to hiring of the bus is not correct and consequently the finding of the Tribunal that the RTC and the Insurance Company are not liable to pay the compensation is nothing but unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. The Tribunal ought to have seen that in the tender notice or in the agreement entered with the appellant by RTC with regard to hiring the bus i.e., the bus which involved in the accident, there is no condition mentioned imposing obligation on the part of the owner of the vehicle that he shall have IMT 44 endorsement from the concerned Insurance Company. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that RTC is not liable to pay the compensation is nothing but contrary to the material available on record.

5. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in relying on conditions 5 and 6 of the agreement, dated 18.4.2006 while holding that RTC and the Insurance Company are not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income as well as the dependency of the claimants.

A.S. No.1791 of 2008 :

6. The appellants are claimants in the main O.P.No.598 of 2006. Their contention is that the insurance policy Ex.B2 was in force as on the date of accident, hence the Tribunal erred in exonerating the 3rd respondent, who is the insurer and the 2nd respondent RTC from their liability, which is illegal and against the material available on record. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A4 while considering the age of the deceased. The assessing of the age of the deceased by the Tribunal is unscientific and imaginary. The Tribunal failed to award any amount under consortium, towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and also failed to apply proper multiplier.

7. Since both the appeals arose out of the same award and decree, for the sake of convenience, the appellants/claimants in M.A. C.M.A. No.1791 of 2008 are being referred as appellants and the appellant and other respondents 4 and 5 RTC and insurance company in M.A. C.M.A. No.4669 of 2008 are being referred as respondents.

8. The claim of appellants/claimants in brief is as follows :

The appellants 1 to 3 are wife and daughters of deceased P.Venkata Ramulu who was working as Attender-cum-Watchman in the office of the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Karimnagar. On 24.4.2006 at about 8.30 PM while the deceased was proceeding to Ramanagar on his cycle after completion of his night duty and when he reached near Muniganti Venkataiah Hotel and crossing the road, in the meantime, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-25-U-0200 of Kamareddy depot came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his cycle. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar, wherefrom he was referred to MGM Hospital and while shifting to MGM Hospital, he succumbed to injuries.

9. The deceased was 48 years old and used to draw monthly gross salary of Rs.9,469/- and contribute the same for th