JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

M.F.A.No.8057/2015 and M.F.A.No.8058/2017 have been filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the judgment dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and from the same judgment, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.10.2007, the deceased Krishna Kumar and the deceased Shankar N Bhat were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.GJ-6-AH-122. When they reached near Sanabagate, a goods lorry bearing Registration No.KA-12-3556 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants of the deceased Krishna Kumar in MFA 8057/2015 thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of accident and was engaged in the business of electrical works and was earning a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-per annum whereas the claimants of the deceased Shankar N Bhat in MFA 8058/2015 also filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was engaged in the real estate business and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/-per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-along with interest. It was further pleaded in both the claim petitions that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver.

4. The insurance company filed written statement in both the petitions in which, inter alia, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the accident did not occur on account of the negligence of the driver of the goods lorry. The ages, occupations, incomes and injuries sustained by the claimant was denied. It was also pleaded that liability of the insurance company to the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined Narayana Bhat (PW1), Balakrishna Gowda (PW2) and Mahabaleshwar Bhat (PW3) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. The respondents examined Iyyar Swamy (RW1), Mohammed Kabeer (RW2) and got marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the goods lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants in MFA 8057/2015 and MFA 8058/2015 to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.68,85,000/-and Rs.20,05,000/-respectively along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the insurance company.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erred in making an addition to the tune of 50% instead of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects when it is clear from Ex.P20 Income Tax Returns that the deceased Krishna Kumar was self-employed and not in a permanent job. It is further submitted the Tribunal erred in making an addition of 50% instead of 25% to the income of the deceased Ex.P10 IT returns clearly disclosed that the dece