JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant has assailed the judgment dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P Nos.1106/2004, 1107/2004 and 1148/2004.

2. The Respondent No.1, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, had filed three separate Petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the said Act”) in view of death of his wife and two minor children in a motor vehicular accident on 30.09.2004, involving Truck bearing No.AP01/T-1328, which was insured by the Appellant/Insurance Company.

3. The case of the Claimant is that on 30.09.2004 his wife Nirmala Dhote and two minor children viz. Tejas Dhote and Shrikant Dhote were travelling by Jeep bearing No.MH33/F-3100. It was alleged that the offending Truck bearing No. AP01/T-1328, which was owned and driven by Respondent No.2 dashed against the said Jeep, resulting in death of his wife and two minor children. The Claimant alleged that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Truck. He, therefore, filed Petitions under Section 166 of the said Act against the insurer and the insured of the offending vehicle.

4. The Appellant/Insurance Company denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, but claimed that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep. The Appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, denied its liability to pay any compensation to the Claimant.

5. Upon considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Truck. Insofar as the minor children who were 3 and 5 years of age, the Tribunal considered the notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and on applying multiplier of 16, assessed loss of dependency at Rs.1,60,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-each towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses leading to an award of total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-each with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

6. The deceased in M.A.C.P. No.1107/2004 was the wife of the Claimant. In the said claim petition, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. The Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenses and upon applying multiplier of 16, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-each towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal thus awarded total compensation of Rs.3,03,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved by these judgments, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed these appeals under Section 173 of the said Act.

7. Ms. Anita Mategaonker, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the minor children had no income and, as such, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency. She further submits that the wife of the Claimant was a house-wife, hence the Tribunal was not justified in considering the notional income at Rs.3,000/-per month. She further submits that, considering that there were three dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. She further submits that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep in which the deceased were travelling. She submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards contributory negligence. She submits that the compensation awarded in all three Claim Petitions is exorbitant and hence needs to be scaled down.

8. Shri B.S. Mandhare, learned counsel for the Claimant also submits that the finding on the issue of negligence merits no interference. On the quantum of compensation, he submi