JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 208 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, who is the second respondent, has filed MACMA No. 2450 of 2012, whereas the claimants in the MVOP has filed MACMA No. 1963 of 2014. As both the appeals arise out of the orders passed in MVOP No. 208 of 2009, both the appeals are disposed of by common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as claimants and respondents, as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of Guvvala Malla Reddy, who died in the accident. The said Guvvala Malla Reddy will hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased."

4. The claimants’ case is that on 06.11.2008 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased was cutting the stones. At about 8.30 a.m., the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 04 X 1505 and 1506 reversed the said vehicle without blowing a horn in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, for which the deceased fell down on the boulders and stones and received grievous injuries to his face, nose, and head and died on the spot. It is not in dispute that the first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased.

5. The first respondent remained exparte.

6. The second respondent filed its counter, submitting that the tractor and trailer were insured with it subject to terms and conditions of the policy and that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the second respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs. B.1 to B.5.

8. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer, which resulted in the death of the deceased, and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

9. Both learned counsel were heard.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in MACMA No. 1963 of 2014 contended that the tribunal granted less compensation without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record; the tribunal erred in not taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298).

11. Learned counsel for the second respondent/appellant in MACMA No. 2450 of 2012 contended that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid licence as on the date of the accident; the tribunal, without perusing Ex.B.1-policy, passed the award against the insurance company.

12. Now the points that arise for consideration are,

I. Whether the tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the second respondent/ insurance company?

II. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or requires enhancement?

13. After careful reading of the order passed by the tribunal and rival contentions raised by both sides, it can be seen that the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent tractor and trailer is not questioned by the second respondent/insurance company in the appeal filed by it, and the second respondent/i