COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017, filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.3396 of 2017 filed by claimants challenging the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 18.08.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.2032 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribunal- cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short (cid:147)the Tribunal(cid:148)).

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

3. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants laid a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one M.Anitha, wife of claimant No. 1, mother of claimant Nos. 2 & 3, daughter- in-law of claimant Nos. 4 & 5 (hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)the deceased(cid:148)), who died in the accident that occurred on 24.05.2015. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased, along with her daughter and husband, was proceeding by walk towards Darga near Anjali Theatre, Secunderabad and when she reached near Balamrai Khaman, Begumpet, at about 06:00 a.m., one Mini Bus bearing No.AP 28 TB 0511 proceeding from Paradise towards Bowenpally, came on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down on the road and received fatal injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Sunshine Hospital and later, shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.284 of 2015 was registered under Section 304(A) IPC. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- as a tailor and construction labour. On account of the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus bearing No.AP 28 TB 0511.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3, insurance company filed counter stating that the respondent No.1 did not possess valid driving licence and respondent No. 2 did not possess valid documents and denied all the averments made in the claim-petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. After considering claim and counter filed by the respondent No. 3 and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus and has awarded an amount of Rs.16,83,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively.

6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

7. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017) is that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was walking on the road without observing the moving vehicles on the road. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence even on the part of the deceased. As regards the quantum of compensation, although the claimants failed to prov