JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 14th May, 2002 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SD), Berhampur in MAC No.631/1999 (88/1995) is assailed in MACA No.50 of 2002 by the Oriental Insurance Company which was respondent No.2 in the said MAC. The same judgment is assailed in MACA No.274 of 2003 by Smt. Bijayalaxmi Tripathy and others who were the petitioners in the said MAC. Both the appeals having arisen out of the same judgment of the Tribunal, the same were taken up for hearing to¬gether.

2. Respondents 1 to 5 in MACA No.50 of 2002 who are appel¬lants in MACA No.274 of 2003 and are respectively the widow, minor son and daughter and dependent parents of one Simachal Tripathy, had filed the aforesaid MAC before the Tribunal claim¬ing a compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 on account of death of said Simachal Tripathy in a motor vehicle accident on 6.11.1994. It was averred by them that Simachal Tripathy was working as the Conductor in a bus bearing registration number OSN 649. On 6.11.1994 wile, as the Conductor, he was going in that bus due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, not being able to main¬tain balance fell down from the bus and a rear wheel of the bus run over his head causing instantaneous death.

3. The owner of the bus having not contested the case after receiving notice was set ex parte.

The Oriental Insurance Company which was respondent No.2 in the MAC filed its written statement disputing the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Besides, the Insurance Company also disputed the income of the deceased and baldly refuted the other averments of the petitioners. Further, averring that there was violation of the conditions of the insurance policy of the bus and that the bus having no valid route permit on the date of the accident as also the driver having to possessed a valid driving licence, it took the plea that it was not liable to pay any compensation. It also stated that the death in question having occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased as he was trying to climb to the roof of the running bus when he fell down and was run over by a rear wheel of the bus, its liability to pay any compensation did not arise.

4. On the basis of the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues to adjudicate the case. While the petitioners got three witnesses examined on their behalf includ¬ing a doctor and exhibited six documents comprising of the police papers and insurance policy of the bus, the Insurance Company adduced no evidence, either oral or documentary. After consider¬ing the materials available on record, the Tribunal was satisfied that the petitioners were entitled to compensation. Considering the age and income of the deceased as well as other factors,the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,86,500.00 with 9% inter¬est thereon from the date of filing of the MAC, i.e. 25.4.1995 and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same within two months, failing which it would be liable to pay interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12% per annum.

5. The petitioner-appellants in MACA No.274 of 2003 chal¬lenge the judgment of the Tribunal on ground that the compensa¬tion awarded is as inadequate. According to Dr. Dash, their learned counsel, the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.15,600.00 while evidence reveals that he was receiving a salary of Rs.2,250.00 per month besides receiving Rs.3,00.00 per month towards his dress and food.

6. The submissions of Dr. Dash are strongly repudiated by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. According to him, the Cleaner of the same bus who was travelling in the bus at the time of the accident had filed FIR with police clearly stating therein that while the deceased was trying to climb to the roof of the bus to sleep there, his legs slipped and he fell down. When he hauled noticing the said fall, the driver sto