1. All these appeals under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act are arising out of common judgment and award dated 30.6.2008 passed in MVC No.7675/2006 and MVC No.7676/2006 on the file of III Addl. Small Cases Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short 'Tribunal'), Bangalore (SCCH-18). Therefore they are disposed of by his common judgment.

2. One H. Hanish and one G. Ajith Kumar aged about 25 years and 27 years were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EP- 7318 on 10.10.2006 over the silk board flyover, Madivala, Bangalore at about 10.50 p.m. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-01-B-5467 came in rash & negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact, both H. Hanish-rider of the motor cycle and G. Ajith Kumar-pillion rider died on the spot. As such, claiming compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs each, the parents of both the deceased have filed claim petitions under Section 166 of M.V. Act in MVC No.7675/2006 and MVC No.7676/2006 respectively.

3. Both the claim petitions have been resisted by the owner and the insurer of the car involved in the accident denying all the material averments made out in both the claim petitions as to the age of the deceased, avocation of the deceased, their monthly income, relationship of the claimants with the deceased etc., etc., apart from denying negligence attributed to the driver of the car. Further, though the insurance company admitted the issuance of policy which was valid as on the date of the accident, it is contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident as he had a driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle, whereas, the vehicle involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. Hence, the insurance company has sought for dismissal of the claim petition by fastening liability upon the owner of the car.

4. Both the claim petitions came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary by the claimants and the insurance company, after taking into consideration the avocation and income of the deceased and the monthly dependency, held that the accident and the resultant death of deceased H. Hanish and G. Ajith Kumar was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car involved in question by its driver and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- on account of death of H. Hanish and Rs.9,95,000/- on account of death of Ajith Kumar together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held both respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and the Insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award and directed Insurance company to indemnify the owner of the car.

5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and liability to pay the compensation in MVC Nos.7675/2006 and 7676/2006, the Insurance company has preferred MFA No.10777/2008 and MFA No.10778/2008 respectively, whereas, the claimants have preferred MFA Nos.98/2009 and MFA No.100/2009 for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC Nos.7675/2006 and 7676/2006. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the Insurance company. Perused the records.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' in both the claim petitions is on the lower side having regard to the avocation and the monthly income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side in both the claim petitions and that it requires to be enhanced.

7. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would contend that the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions is on the higher side and the deduction of 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards personal