JUDGMENT :

1. M.F.A. No. 8807/2015 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas M.F.A. No. 25/2015 has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). Since, both the appeals preferred under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) arise out of the same accident as well as same judgment passed by the Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.06.2011, the deceased Naveen R was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-04-MR-8901. When he reached near Mandal Tyre Shop, JK Road, Bhopal, a truck bearing Registration No. MP-04-HB-2376 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle' for short), which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and was employed as a Senior Technical Assisstant at ISRO and was earning a sum of Rs.33,791/-per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,00,000/-along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the wife of the deceased had also filed a similar claim petition, in respect of the same accident for the death of the deceased at Bhopal. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable. 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 claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondents examined Shewta N (RW1), Narayana KA (RW2), N Ananjaneya Sarma (RW3), C Surendra (RW4) and got exhibited documents namely, Ex.R1 to Ex.R22. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.55,37,674/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased by placing reliance on Ex.R3 which did not disclose the accurate monthly salary of the deceased as the same contained a special allowance to the extent of Rs.5,000/-which was not paid to the deceased in other months as evident from Ex.R15. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not deducting a sum to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-and Rs.12,34,091 which formed a part of the death benefits given to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the accident. It is also submitted that Rs.5,229/-per month should be deducted from the income of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' on account of the pensionary benefits being drawn by the wife of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Tribunal