1. As these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of finally by this common judgment.

2. In a road accident, one Chetan Kumar died. His wife, two minor daughters, of whom the second daughter was born posthumously, and parents filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before MACT, Bengaluru, seeking compensation from KSRTC, the owner / insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has held that accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus and the driver of the car / deceased at the rate of 50 per cent each and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,98,94,840 with interest at 6 per cent per annum and directed the Corporation to pay 50 per cent of the said amount, i.e., Rs. 99,47,420 to the claimants. Both Corporation and claimants, aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, have challenged the same on the ground of negligence and quantum by preferring MFA No. 7323 and MFA No. 6966 of 2014 respectively.

3. As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased Chetan Kumar in a road accident occurred on 4.3.2013 by involvement of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA 06 - F 733, hereinafter referred to as 'bus' and Swift car bearing registration No. KA 53 - Z 6266, hereinafter referred to as 'car', the only points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:
(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, in holding that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of both the driver of KSRTC bus and the driver of the car / deceased at the rate of 50 per cent each, is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether compensation amount of Rs. 1,98,94,840 with interest at 6 per cent per annum awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement?

4. Mr. A.K. Bhat for Mr. N. Gopal Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that though the deceased was driving the car on the left side of the road slowly and carefully, the accident had taken place, since the driver of the bus drove the bus at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and later hit the roadside tree which was uprooted as evident from the police records, viz., FIR, mahazar, IMV report and charge - sheet which were marked as Exhs. P1, P2, P3 and P6 and the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The Tribunal without considering this material evidence on record has committed an error in holding that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of the bus and the driver of the car / deceased at the rate of 50 per cent each, instead of holding that the accident has occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus.

5. With regard to quantum, the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and, therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismissing the appeal filed by KSRTC.

6. Per contra, Mr. D. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for KSRTC, submits that the person who lodged the complaint to the police about the accident and examined by the claimants as PW 2 is the owner of the car. PW 2 in his cross - examination has admitted that the road at the place where the accident had taken place is a straight road, vehicles coming from opposite direction can be noticed at a distance of 1/2 km and he had noticed the bus from a distance of 100 metres. Thereby his submission was that deceased was not diligent in driving his car carefully and cautiously. He submits that PW 2 is not only the owner of the car, he was an occupant in the car at the time of accident and he is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon. He submits that though the driver of the bus immediately after the accident made an attempt to lodge complaint with