JUDGMENT :

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:

1. Both M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3012 of 2012 and 837 of 2014 are directed against the order and decree dated 21.10.2011 passed in M.O.P.No.41 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short “the learned MACT”).

2. The respondents before the learned MACT, representing the A.P.S.R.T.C., filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3012 of 2012 disputing the liability and quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants before the learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A. No.837 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2579 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), who is arrayed as respondent No.1 before the learned MACT, is a proforma party in these appeals. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the claimants” and “the respondents”, with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5(i). One Siripurapu Lakshminarayana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of claimant No.3.

(ii). On 17.05.2010, when the deceased was travelling in a jeep from Chodavaram to Paderu, near Garikabandha check-post within the jurisdiction of V. Madula Police Station, at about 1.30 p.m., the offending vehicle, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, dashed against the jeep and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to RCM Hospital at V. Madugula and thereafter shifted to K.G. Hospital and later succumbed to the injuries.

(iii). A case in Crime No. 32 of 2010 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently a charge sheet was laid for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC.

(iv). The deceased was aged about 45 years and was working as a Supervisor in BHL-HES JV, earning about Rs.12,800/- per month, and was also doing private contract works and thereby contributing his all income to the maintenance of the family. Due to his death, the claimants lost their sole breadwinner and everything. Hence, they are entitled to just and reasonable compensation.

Case of the Respondents:

6(i). The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants.

(ii). The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the jeep. Therefore the claimants are not entitled to compensation from the respondents.

(iii). The age, occupation and income of the deceased claimed are baseless and the compensation claimed is excessive.

Evidence before the learned MACT:

7(i). Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1. One Vanthala Krishna Rao, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2 and K. Jagadeesh was examined as P.W.3 to prove the occupation and income of the deceased.

(ii). Ex.A1- FIR, Ex.A2-Post mortem certificate, Ex.A3-M.V.I. Report, Ex.A4- Charge Sheet, Ex.A5-Inquest Report, Ex.A6-Salary Certificate and Ex.A7- certificate indicating that the deceased completed ITI were marked on behalf of the claimants and Ex.X1-Authorization was also marked.

(iii). No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

Findings of the learned MACT:

8. The learned MACT, considering the evidence, held the issue relating to negligence and liability of the respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C. in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenditure and applying the multiplier '15', found the entitlement of claimants at Rs.7,70,000/- under various heads.

Arguments in the appeals:

For the claimants:

9. The compensation awarded at Rs.7,70,000/- as against Rs.15,00,000/- claimed is inadequa