JUDGMENT :

1. Since these appeals arise out of the award dated 07.12.2012, passed in O.P.No.318 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chittoor, they are heard together and are being disposed of by passing this common judgment.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1878 of 2014 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which is the 2nd respondent in the aforementioned O.P challenging the award passed therein is fastening the liability against it along with the owner of Bolero vehicle bearing No.A.P.03 AN 0767 to pay compensation of Rs.4,98,362/-to the respondents 1 to 4 herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased Pavan Kumar who died due to the injuries received in the accident that took place on the intervening night of 2/3.04.2011.

3. The insurance company having felt that it is aggrieved by the award passed by the Court below granting compensation of Rs.4,82,862/-to the claimant, has preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1878 of 2014, raising a preliminary contention that the deceased along with three others drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and it was the main cause for the occurrence of the accident. As per its contention, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, which was driven by the deceased at the relevant point of time are the necessary parties, and that the tribunal ought not to have entertained the application made by the claimants for compensation due to non joinder of them as parties to the petition.

4. The 4th and 5th grounds urged by the insurance company are relating to the compensation awarded by the Court below under the head of medical expenditure and the interest awarded. As per its contention, the Court below erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,61,962/-to the claimants under the head of medical expenditure and the Court below ought not to have awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and that the interest is to be reduced to 6% per annum.

5. The respondents 1 to 4 the claimants in O.P.No.318 of 2011 have preferred the M.A.C.M.A.No.2055 of 2013 expressing displeasure over the award passed by the Court below. As per their contention, the compensation amount of Rs.4,98,632/-awarded to them in respect of death of the deceased Pavan Kumar is very meagre and low. Their contention is that the deceased was aged about 28 years by the date of accident. He was hale and healthy and was getting the income of Rs.20,000/-per month. He also used to supply raw-material such as sand, bricks, mud for construction of buildings and apartments. Though these facts are proved by them by adducing evidence and on production of Ex.A.11 issued by the Secretary of MVLC Co-operative Society Muruganipalli, the Court below instead of assessing of the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-per month for determination of compensation, assessed his income at Rs.3,000/-per month. The tribunal had discarded the evidence given by P.W.2 in respect of the income of the deceased and based on its self drawn presumptions fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month which had no basis at all. The deceased was an active mason. He was very intelligent in gathering labour and supplying labour for construction of building and apartments. He was also supplying the building material. Though all these facts were spoken by P.W.2, the Tribunal awarded meagre compensation to the claimants. The trial Court ought to have granted reasonable compensation taking into consideration of the labour rates prevailing as on the date of passing of the award. The deceased was the eldest son to the claimants 1 and 2. They lost one of their sons. The Court below taking into consideration of the pathetic condition of claimants 1 and 2 who lost their eldest son ought to have granted reasonable compensation since the compensation awarded was not fair and reasonable, they approached t