JUDGMENT :

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3766 of 2014 filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.2199 of 2019 filed by the Road Transport Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2014 made in O.P.No.732 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one Telugu Ashok (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in the accident that occurred on 12.05.2011. According to the claimants, on 12.05.2011 the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 L 4279 from Amaradikala village to Hyderabad and when he reached Cross Road of Mekavanampally near Ambedkar Statute at 12:30 a.m., one hired R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Y 8190 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint, the Police Mominpet, registered a case against the driver of the bus. According to the claimants, the deceased was 29 years and earning Rs.4,500/- per month as he was working as Field Assistant in Food for Work Programme under M.R.O. Mominpet and due to sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their source of income and love and affection. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent No.3 is the hirer of the bus and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the parents and respondent No.6 is the un-married brother of the deceased.

4. Considering the claim, counters filed by respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of both the deceased as well as the driver of the R.T.C. bus and having apportioned the contributory negligence at 40% on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased, the tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- to be paid by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and the Road Transport Corporation respectively.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material available on record.

6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in MACMA No. 3766 of 2014) is that the tribunal has committed grave error in apportioning contributory negligence at 40% on the part of the deceased merely on the ground that the accident occurred as a result of head on collision in a broad day light. In this regard, the tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-2, eyewitness, who categorically deposed that while the deceased was taking turn towards right, the offending vehicle came in high speed negligently and dashed the two wheeler. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimants seeks to set aside the findings of the tribunal in this regard. As regard the quantum of compensation, it is contended that though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month as Field Assistant under the M.R.O., the tribunal has taken the meager amount of Rs.30,000/- as the annual income of the deceased. It is further contended that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 AC