COMMON JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder petition filed by the claimants namely., Karrola Shekar was partly allowed by the Tribunal, granting an amount of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum towards compensation on account of death of Karrolla Swaroopa in a road traffic accident, both claimants and respondent/Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘RTC’) have filed two separate appeals challenging the said order. The claimants have filed M.A.C.M.A.No.602 of 2020, whereas the RTC which was shown as respondent filed another appeal vide M.A.C.M.A. No.3458 of 2018. M.A.C.M.A.No.3458 of 2018 has been filed by the respondent/RTC for setting aside the impugned order, dismissal of the petition. Whereas the other appeal vide MACMA No.602 of 2020 was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since both the appeals are against the same order with different prayers, to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience, it is proposed to dispose both the appeals under this common Judgment. The parties will be referred as ‘claimants’ and ‘respondent’.

2. As could be seen from the impugned order, M.V.O.P. No.155 of 2016 has been filed by the claimants, seeking compensation on account of death of Karrolla Swaroopa in a road traffic accident. The claimants are husband and daughter of the deceased Swarupa. According to the pleadings in the above referred M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2016, the claimants have pleaded that when the deceased and her daughter were travelling on a moped bearing No.AP-25-AQ-2338 being driven by the husband, there was an accident at Radio Station, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad when an RTC bus dashed the bike, causing multiple fractures to the skull and other parts of the deceased Swarupa who died on the spot. The claimants have sought for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation. The respondent opposed the claim on various grounds.

3. To prove their claim, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 have examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The respondent had examined the driver of bus as RW1. The Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus and allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.10,78,000/-. 4. According to the findings of the Tribunal, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month and having considered the age of the deceased, 40% of the said income was added as future prospects. After deducting 1/3 income towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the Tribunal has considered Rs.40,000/- as consortium, Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and allowed the petition by impugned order.

5. The claimants have filed appeal on the ground that the Tribunal did not assess the actual income of the deceased. Otherwise, it could have awarded more amount. According to the claimants as on the date of the accident, deceased was 24 years old. She was earning Rs.20,000/- by doing agriculture, vegetable and milk business. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Whereas the respondent has claimed that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the husband of the deceased. But the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect. Otherwise, it could not have passed an award granting Rs.10,78,000/-. They have also pleaded that the income assessed by the Corporation/RTC @ Rs.5000/- per month, adding 40% of the income as future prospects is on higher side. Thereby, prayed for setting aside the order.

7. Learned counsel representing RTC has also submitted that if the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.3000/- per month, the amount awarded in favour of the claimants need to be reduced.

8. In view of these pleadings and specific contentions by both parti