( 1 ) THE authorities of the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation are the appellants who filed the appeal assailing the Judgment and decree dated 18. 8. 1997 passed by the learned third additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in m. O. P. No. 291 of 1995.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 are the claimants. 6th respondent is the driver of the APSRTC bus. The husband, parents-in-law and parents of the deceased who are the Respondents 1 to 5 herein, respectively filed the claim, for a compensation of rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Smt. B. Suseela, who met with a motor accident on 26. 1. 1995 at 6. 45 p. m. , when she was alighting the bus, on account of the rash and negligent act of the 6th respondent, who started the bus without caring to know whether the passengers got down the bus completely or not. The deceased sustained severe head injury in the accident and ultimately succumbed to the same on the next day, i. e. , on 27. 1. 1995 at King George Hospital, visakhapatnam. It is their further claim that the deceased was working in Kranthi tailoring shop of one Sri Y. S. Raju and was earning an amount of Rs. 1,300. 00 to 1,500/- per month and that, on account of her death, they suffered financially and mentally.

( 3 ) THE corporation resisted the claim on the premise that the accident was occurred on account of the gross negligence on the part of the deceased herself, who, in her anxiety jumped out of the bus so as to go to cinema theater, when the bus was in a running condition and thereby sustained injuries, and that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant.

( 4 ) ON the issue of the alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the apsrtc bus bearing No. AP-9z-4706, appreciating the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 4, of which PW-4 is the independent witness qua RW-1, the driver of the bus, eventually, the Tribunal having regard the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 buttressed by Ex. A. 2, copy of the First Information report which had been promptly lodged, was of the view that it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The oral evidence of pw4 was not shaken in the cross-examination. RW-1, the driver would naturally try to exculpate himself in view of the crime alleged against him, and he cannot be expected to speak against his own case. In that view of the matter, I see no illegality or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence on the point. The finding reached by the learned Tribunal is impeccable and there are no compelling circumstances to interfere with the same.

( 5 ) THE crucial issue is the issue pertaining to the assessment of compensation and the entitlement of the claimants. The father-in-law and the father of the deceased who were claimants 2 and 4 died pending adjudication of the claim and their claim was abated. The Tribunal was of the view that the 3rd claimant, the mother-in-law of the deceased could not be the legal representative or the dependant of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the tribunal considered only the claim of the claimants 1 and 5, the husband and mother of the deceased respectively. The tribunal then proceeded to assess the compensation on the basis of loss of dependency, inasmuch as the deceased who had been working as a tailor and earning rs. 1,300/- per month was contributing the same to her family. The thrust of the contention by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC seems to be that it is not at all a case where the compensation shall have to be assessed on the basis of loss of dependency, for the deceased was a housewife and the claimants 1 to 5 are not the dependants.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants represents that the Claimants 1 and 5 sufficiently answered the definition of legal representative, and therefore, they are entitled to claim compensation as the legal representatives of the deceased and that as the deceased was contri