The court established that contributory negligence must be assessed based on the actions of both parties involved in an accident, and compensation calculations must consider future prospects and the deceased's income accurately.

JUDGMENT

K.S.MUDAGAL J. - These appeals arise out of the common accident which culminated into several MACT claim petitions and in turn the above appeals as shown in the table below:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 27/12/2010 at 3.30 a.m. one M. Prakash was driving the tempo traveler bearing registration No.KA-01/C-2086 near Pethapuram bridge within the limits of Kaveripatnam Police Station, Tamilnadu. The said tempo traveler rammed into trailer lorry No.TN-30/Y-7179 which was moving ahead of it. In the accident driver M. Prakash, the other inmates of the tempo traveler by name Arunkumar, Bhagyalakshmi, Jayaram Reddy, Pruthvi and Suguna died at the spot itself. The other inmates by name Gayathri, Sudharani, Kishore, Alex, Vinoy Roy and Gowramma suffered injuries. Regarding accident on the basis of complaint of one Manoj-the inmate of the tempo traveler, Kaveripatnam Police registered first information report in Crime No.603/2010 against the driver of the lorry No.TN-30/Y-7179. It was alleged that the said lorry was proceeding in front of the tempo traveler. The driver of the tempo traveler was driving his vehicle in moderate speed, but the lorry driver was driving the vehicle in high speed. All of a sudden, without giving any indicators the driver stopped the lorry. Due to such sudden action, M. Prakash could not control his vehicle and the same rammed into the lorry causing fatalities and injuries to the inmates as aforesaid. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petitions were the registered owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.TN-30/Y-7179. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in those petitions were the registered owner and insurer of the tempo traveler No.KA.- 01/C-2086.

3. The wife and minor children of Prakash filed MVC No.7277/2011 against the respondents alleging that the accident occurred solely due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry. They contended that they were depending on the income of the deceased and he was earning Rs. 40, 000.00 per month from his fleet business and employment as driver. They claimed compensation of Rs. 65, 25, 000.00.

4. Vinay Roy/the injured inmate of the tempo traveler filed MVC No.4909/2011 claiming compensation of Rs. 4, 00, 000.00. Father and sister of the deceased Arun Kumar filed MVC No.4910/2011 claiming that he was working as executive in M/s Team Lease Staffing Solutions and earning Rs. 17, 000.00 per month and they were all depending on his income. They claim compensation of Rs. 25, 00, 000.00. The husband and daughter of deceased Bhagyalakshmi filed MVC No.4911/2011 claiming compensation of Rs. 20, 00, 000.00. They claim that she was earning Rs. 10, 000.00 by flower vending business and due to her death they have suffered damages. Deceased Bhagyalakshmi and Arun Kumar were the mother and son.

5. The claim petitions were contested only by respondent Nos.2 and 4. The Insurers of the lorry and the tempo traveler, each of them contended that the accident occurred solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle. They further denied the injuries and the permanent physical disability suffered by the claimant in MVC No.4909/2011, the age, occupation and income of the victims in other cases and their liability to pay compensation. Initially, the owner and Insurer of the Tempo Traveller was not impleaded in the petition. Subsequently, they were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 and 4. MVC Nos.4909/2011, 4910/2011 and 4911/2011 were filed before the VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal in these cases consolidated all these cases and recorded common evidence. Whereas MVC No.7277/2011 was filed before the XIX Addl. Small Causes Judge, MACT Bengaluru. That was adjudicated separately.

6. In both the cases the Tribunals held that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of both the lorry and the tempo traveler. The Tribunals apportioned the actionable negligence to the tempo Traveller and the lo