Mr. B. Manohar, J.

The claimants as well as M/s. Sriram General Insurance Company have filed these two appeals challenging the judgment and award dated 30th December, 2011 made in MVC No. 1361/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal' for short).

2. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also restricting the liability of the insurance company only to an extent of 50% filed MFA No.3902/2012, whereas the insurance company being aggrieved by the exorbitant quantum of compensation awarded; deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, since the deceased was a bachelor and fastening 50% liability on the insurer of parked lorry has filed MFA.No.5143/2012. Hence, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The rank of the parties is referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:

The claimants are the father and mother of deceased Harish. They filed a claim petition contending that on 7-8-2010, while the deceased Harish proceeding in a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-01/N-6994 along with three other persons towards Dharmasthala, on B.M. bye-pass road, opposite to Rajeev Engineering College, Hassan, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16/A-3714 was parked without showing the signal or indicator light. Due to that, Maruthi Omni dashed against the lorry from the rear side. Due to that, three persons travelling in the car including Harish died on the spot. The accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent parking of the lorry in the middle of the National Highway without any indicator. Prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a Driver and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. At the time of death, he was aged about 22 years. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance. The first respondent in the written statement denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni car, the accident had occurred. The driver of the lorry was holding valid and effective driving license and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against Respondent No.1.

6. The second respondent in their written statement inter alia contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license to driver the lorry. The liability of the insurance company is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni, it was dashed against the rear portion of the lorry. Hence the insurer of the lorry is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against Respondent No.2.

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

8. The first claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined, however, insurance policy of the offending lorry was marked as Ex.R1 with the consent of the both the parties.

9. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, taking into consideration IMV report, spot panchanama, copy of the complaint, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni car, it dashed against the parked lorry on the left side of the road. The driver of the lorry has also contributed for the cause of accident as he had parked the lorry on the National Highway without indicators. Hence, the drivers of both the vehicles have contributed to the accident to an extent of 50% each. With regard