COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Since these two appeals – one by the Insurance Company and the other by the Claimants, arise out of O.P.No.249 of 2006, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri C.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the record.

3. These two appeals, viz., M.A.C.M.A. No.1555 of 2015 filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.1556 of 2015 filed by the claimants, arise out of the order dated 10.12.2008 passed in O.P.No.249 of 2006 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.8,12,500/- together with interest @9% per annum.

4. The accident and the death of the deceased are not in dispute.

5. The Insurance Company filed the appeal mainly contending that the driver of the Tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the liability ought not to have been fastened upon the insurer. It is further contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardari v/s. Sushil Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1307

6. Per contra, the claimants have preferred the cross-appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is their specific contention that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.8,12,500/- as against the claimed amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum.

7. It is also urged that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, having regard to his age and income, as mandated by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v/s. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the deceased was a young person aged about 28 years, employed as a Lecturer in Narender Degree College, Armour, and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- It is further contended that in view of the judgment of Nagappa v/s. Gurudayal Singh, the Tribunal is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation even in excess of the amount claimed having due regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

8. Before the Tribunal, in order to establish the age, occupation and income of the deceased, the claimants examined PWs.1, 3 and 4 and relied on Ex.A.2-inquest report, Ex.A.3-post mortem report, Exs.A.7 and A.8-salary certificates of the deceased, Exs.A.9 and A.10- memorandum of marks and Ex.X.1 details of salary of the deceased. The Tribunal, based on the oral testimony of PW.4 and documentary evidence under Exs.A.7 and A.8 salary certificates, held that the deceased was working as Private Lecturer and was earning around Rs.79,700/- per annum. However, the Tribunal conservatively assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family would be Rs.48,000/- per annum.

9. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased based on Ex.A.7 salary certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 11.06.1976 and the accident occurred on 15.01.2006, and as per the same, the age of the deceased was 29 years and above and there is no contra evidence denying the age of the deceased and thus, the age of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal as 30 years.

10. As per the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Bhagwandas v/s. Mohd. Arif, 1987 ACJ 1052, the Tribunal applied multiplier to the person aged 30 years is 16.51. Thus, the Tribunal in total awarded an amount of Rs.8,12,480/- rounded off to Rs.8,12,500/-.

11. I have given my earnest consid