Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making with the consent of Learned Counsel for parties, appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MFA No. 31686/2013 and MFA No. 31412/2013 are filed by the insurer of Lorry bearing Certificate of Registration No. KA-27-649, aggrieved by the finding fastening liability to pay compensation, by judgment and award dated 17.04.2013 in MVC No. 89/2011 of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga and by judgment and award dated 16.02.2013 in MVC No. 969/2010 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga. (for short ‘MACT’).

3. MFA No. 31483/2013 is preferred by the claimants in MVC No.969/2010, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.02.2013 in MVC No.969/2010 insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation and attributing contributory negligence of 40% to the driver of the public transport bus.

4. Respondent No.2 - owner/insured of the offending lorry since placed ex parte before MACT in MVC No. 89/2011, hence notice to said respondent is dispensed with in the light of Karnataka Amendment to Order 41, Rule 14 CPC.

5. Facts briefly stated are:

On 27.04.2010 at about 6.00 A.M., one Manohar, driver of bus bearing Certificate of Registration KA-32-F-1440 belonging to North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘NEKRTC’), proceeding from Shimoga to Gulbarga, near Khalifat Darga at Jewargi - Gulbarga Road, is said to have dashed a stationary Lorry bearing Certificate of Registration KA-27-649 owned by one Abdul Raheem (Abdul Rehaman) and insured by M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited - appellants in MFA Nos. 31686/2013 & 31412/2013. Manohar is stated to have succumbed to grievous injuries on 28.04.2010 after being shifted to Basaveshwar Hospital, Gulbarga.

6. One Rajendra Singh, a conductor-cum-driver of the NEKRTC bus having sustained grievous injuries due to the said accident, filed MVC No. 89/2011, since, arraigned as respondent in MFA No. 31686/ 2013, though served with notice, is absent and un-represented.

7. Dependents of the deceased Manohar filed MVC No. 969/ 2010, while the injured Rajendra Singh filed MVC No. 89/2011 for compensation invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (‘Act’ for short). Though the petitions arise out of the very same accident, nevertheless, were proceeded with separately, and the trial held independently.

8. In both petitions, owner of the lorry-the insured, and the insurance company-the insurer, were arraigned as respondents Insured/owner of the offending vehicle, though served with notice of the petitions, before the MACT, did not appear and was placed ex-parte in MVC No. 89/2011 while in MVC No.969/2010 was represented by Learned Counsel, but did not offer resistance by filing statement of objections to the claim petitions. Insurer of the offending lorry resisted the petitions by filing written statement interalia denying the averments, contending that it was the driver of NEKRTC bus who caused the accident hence, responsibility was on the driver of NEKRTC bus while asserting that the offending lorry was parked on the extreme left side of the road, though, without parking lights or any signal, since there was no such requirement. In addition, it was contended that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods carrying vehicle as on the date of accident.

9. MACT framed issues in MVC No. 969/2010, first of which related to negligence on the part of driver of the lorry and second, over whether driver of NEKRTC bus succumbed to grievous injury while third over the quantum of compensation and from whom to be recovered. Similar were the issues framed in MVC No.89/2011, though with reference to the injured claimant.

10. Parties let in evidence, when Police records, salary certificate and medical records in respect of the deceased and that of the injured