JUDGMENT :

1. MFA No.8719/2015 has been filed by the insurance company where as, MFA No.6438/2015 has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 17.05.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. deceased Darshan was riding motor cycle on Malleshpalya Main Road, Bangalore. While he reached Manjunatha Wood Works, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-R-5982, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 came from the opposite direction and in dashed the motor cycle of the appellant. As a result of the impact of the aforesaid accident, deceased was thrown out and fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Manipal hospital. During the course of the treatment, he succumbed to injuries and expired.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) claiming compensation inter alia on the ground that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 28 years and had completed MBA and was employed as officer in Bank of Baroda (retail loan factory), Brigade Road, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.55,000/- p.m. It was further submitted that the claimants were entirely dependant on the income of the deceased and on account of untimely demise of the deceased, the claimants are unable to make both the ends meet. It was also pleaded that the police have registered a case for offences under Section 379 & 204(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against respondent No.1 vide Crime No.44/2012. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

4. On receipt of notice of the petition, the respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance. The respondent No.1 denied the age, avocation, income, date place and time of the accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. The respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the assertions of the insurance policy as well as involvement of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982 in the accident. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid vehicle was implicated by the active collusion of the motor cyclist and the police in order to get unlawful gain. It was also pleaded that rider of the motor cycle did not have valid and effective driving licence and the owner of the vehicle knowingly entrusted the same in violation of policy condition. It has also been pleaded that as per MLC the deceased fell from motor cycle due to paralysis and not due to road traffic accident. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal framed issues. The petitioner No.3 examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3.The claimants got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. The respondent No.2 examined its manager legal as RW1 and two witnesses were examined as RW2 and RW3 and respondents exhibited documents viz., Ex.R1 to Ex.R32. The claims tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982. It was further held that the appellants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.24,17,408/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company while inviting the attention of this court to MLC record viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 submitted that in the aforesaid record, the mode, time and place of accident has not bee