1. These two appeals are filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2013 passed by MACT, Tinsukia in Mac Case No. 29/2011.

2. Brief facts, which led to the present appeals are that on 31.03.2010, Late Dipankar Kakati was travelling in a car bearing registration No. As-23/F-1209 from Guwahati to Digboi. The car was driven by Late Dipankar Kakati, who was the owner of the vehicle. The said car driven by deceased Dipankar Kakati met with an accident after hitting against a standing truck, which was parked on the middle of road without any parking light or indicator. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries and died. The parents of Late Dipankar Kakati filed a claim petition before the MACT, Tinsukia, and the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 30,86,289/- with interest @ 6%. The learned Tribunal apportioned the liability attributing contributory negligence to the deceased to the extent of 40%. The vehicle owned and driven by deceased was insured with the appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the truck involved in the accident was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, both the Insurance Companies have preferred the respective appeals.

4. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant in MAC Appl. 221/2015 raised the following points in its appeal No. 221/2015.

(i) The deceased was owner of the car and the accident having taken place for negligence of the deceased himself, the insurer of the car was not liable to pay any compensation, as under the policy, liability of the Insurance Company was to indemnify the insured in respect of claim of third party only. The deceased being owner and diver of the vehicle, insured with Bajaj Alianz General Insurnce Co. Ltd., Tribunal ought not to have held the insurer of the deceased, responsible for satisfying 40% of the award.

(ii) The Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses, which as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121; ought to have been 1/2 of the income, as the claim petition was filed by mother, for death of her son.

5. The appellant in MAC Appl. 272/2014 raised the following points:

(i) While assessing loss of dependency, learned Tribunal did not deduct the professional tax and income tax from the gross income of the deceased.

(ii) Assessment of dependency was wrong.

(iii) The accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself and therefore, insurer of the standing truck ought not to have been saddled with the liability to satisfy the award

(iv) The claimant being parents, the Tribunal ought not to have granted consortium.

6. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and learned counsel Mr. Surajit Dutta for the respondents were heard at length.

7. Leaned counsel Mr. R. Goswami, contended that as per the policy, the insurer of the vehicle, owned by the deceased was not liable to pay any compensation, as the deceased was not a third party. As per Section 147 of the MV Act, liability of the Insurance Company is to indemnify the insured, for any claim against the owner, in respect of death or injury of a third party. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income while assessing the loss of dependency, considering the fact, that the claim petition was by mother for the death of son and there was no other dependents, but deduction of 1/3 in the instant case was improper as the deceased left no other dependent except the parents and claim petition was filed by his mother.

8. Mr. Surajit Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant vehemently arguing on the locus of both the Insurance Co. to prefer appeal, contended that the case was proceeded e