JUDGMENT :

M.F.A.No.4999/2019 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas, M.F.A.No.9992/2018 has 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 25.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and from the same judgment, 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 02.04.2015, the deceased Khazi Saleemuddin was proceeding in a car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MK-5044 near Halehalli Gate, National Highway 13. At that time, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to overtake a lorry and dashed against a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSRTC' for short) which was coming from the opposite direction. 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 24 years at the time of accident and was engaged as a wood planning worker and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-per month. It was further pleaded that accident could have been avoided if the driver of the KSRTC bus had put in efforts to avoid the occurrence of the accident. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.43,60,000/-along with interest.

4. The Respondent No.1 viz., the owner of the car and 4 were proceeded ex parte. The Respondent No.2 viz., the insurer of the car filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the insurance policy issued in respect of the car covered only third party risks and not the risk of accident to the occupants of the car and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The Respondent No.3 viz., the Divisional controller of KSRTC filed written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that the accident did not occur on account of negligence of the driver of the bus and that the liability to pay compensation, if any, has to be fastened on the Respondent No.5 as the bus was validly insured with the Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.5 viz., the insurer of the bus, also filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the car. 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 herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents examined GB Raghavendrappa (RW1), Harsih GR (RW2), DR Basavaraj (RW3) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus who were liable for causing of the accident to the extent of 70% and 30% respectively. 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.2,86,200/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus, the Tribunal erred in hol