JUDGMENT :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

M.A.C.M.A No. 429 of 2018 and 3196 of 2018 are filed by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2017 in M.V.O.P. No. 110/2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Court, Kurnool at Nandyal granting compensation of Rs.34,57,872/- against the claim of Rs.45,00,000/- for the death of one Palusani Dasthagiri Reddy in a motor bike accident.

2. The claimants are the wife, minor daughter and son of the deceased who filed MVOP No.110/2014 against the owner and insurer of the offending motor bike bearing registration No.AP-21-AF-8623 which was partly decreed against both the respondents. Hence both parties filed the above appeals. Since both the appeals arose out of the same MVOP, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Parties in these appeals are referred to as they are arrayed in M.V.O.P.No.110/2014.

4. Heard arguments of Sri Vutla Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for insurance company/ appellant in MACMA No.429/2018 and Sri A. Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for claimants/appellants in MACMA No.3196/2018.

5. Severely fulminating the judgment of the lower tribunal, Sri Vutla Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for insurance company/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.429/2018 would firstly argue that the involvement of motor bike baring No. AP-21-AF-8623 in the accident is highly doubtful because as per the version of claimants, on the night of 27.06.2013 when the deceased was proceeding from Allagadda to Chintagunta Village on the offending motor bike as pillion rider driven by his own brother-in-law who is the owner of the motor bike, the said vehicle allegedly fell in a ditch and thereby the deceased sustained head injury and died on 01.07.2013 while undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital at Bengaluru. Learned counsel would argue that if the said version is true, the 1st respondent who is the own brother-in-law of deceased ought to have reported the accident to police on the same date of accident. However, he lodged Ex.A1-FIR only on 01.07.2013 i.e., after the death of the deceased. It indicates that the deceased must have died in a different accident caused by an unknown vehicle but in order to claim compensation, case was registered against the vehicle of 1st respondent. Hence the tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company.

6. Nextly he argued that the tribunal awarded a high compensation of Rs.31,99,872/- under head “Loss of Income” by taking the monthly income of deceased as Rs.25,000/- and applying multiplier 16. In this context, the tribunal ignored the evidence of PW3 who stated that the deceased was a military employee whose service period would be about 15 years. As per Ex.A1-FIR the deceased already completed 10 years of military service and therefore he was left with only five years of service by the date of accident. In that view, the deceased during the remaining five years of his service would have earned Rs.15 lakhs (25,000 X 12 X 5) and contributed net amount of Rs.10 lakhs only, having regard to the fact that the tribunal accepted his monthly salary as Rs.25,000/-. However, the tribunal committed gross error in taking multiplier 16 and multiplying the same with his annual income of Rs.1,99,992/- to arrive at the exorbitant figure of Rs.31,99,872/-. He further argued that the tribunal failed to deduct income tax from the annual income of the deceased. By that count also, the compensation was unduly hiked. He further argued that the compensation granted under other heads is on higher side and the same should have been restricted to the extent mentioned in the decision National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 = MANU/SC/1366/2017. He thus prayed to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri A. Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants ar