1. MFA No. 22181/2013 is filed by the insurance company and MFA No. 24823 of 2013 is filed by the claimants under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1988' for short) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - In, Bellary, in MVC No. 1153 of 2009.

2. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 12.3.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was returning to his village and on that point of time, a bus bearing registration No. KA 16 - A 2718 dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained multiple fractures and succumbed to the injuries.

4. The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim petition before Tribunal contending that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 10,000 per month, he was aged about 44 years and was the sole breadwinner of the family. The claimants contended that due to the death of the deceased they lost livelihood and, accordingly, claimed compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 along with interest.

5. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 appeared and filed their respective written statements. Respondent No. 2 remained absent and was placed ex parte.

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, in their written statements, denied the case of the claimants in its entirety that the incident had occurred due to the accident caused by the driver of the bus. It was further contended by the insurance company that the deceased died due to lightning occurred on that fatal night. The age, avocation and the monthly income of the deceased were all denied by the said respondents.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

8. The claimant No. 1 - wife of the deceased, in order to prove the case, examined herself as PW 1 and marked about 10 documents as Exhs. P1 to P10. On the other hand, the insurance company examined four witnesses as RWs 1 to 4 and marked about 11 documents as Exhs. R1 to R11.

9. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and further held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,89,000 on account of the death of the deceased. Insurance company has preferred MFA No. 22181 of 2013 questioning the liability and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No. 24823 of 2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

10. I have heard Mr. Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel appearing for insurance company, Mr. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants, and Mr. Prashant Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for driver and owner of the offending bus.

11. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that the cause of death of the deceased is lightning as there was no vehicle involved in the accident much less the offending vehicle which was implicated in the accident. He would further contend that the driver against whom the complaint, F.I.R. and charge - sheet had been filed is now acquitted by the criminal court of the offences alleged against him. It is further contended that the driver, in his evidence, has stated that the body was found dead and even the investigator of the insurance company confirmed that the deceased died due to lightning and there was no involvement of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel would also contend that the investigator of the insurance company had reported that a complaint had been lodged by the owner of the offending bus to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police with regard to non - involvement of the bus in the accident.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the death of the deceased had occurred