( 1 ) SINCE all the three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 7. 7. 1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, in OP No. 129 of 1996, they can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE second respondent/insurer is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 3021/1999, the third respondent/apsrtc ( the Corporation for brevity) is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 1069/2000 and the claimants are the appellants in C. M. A. No. 2550/1999. The insurer and the Corporation in the respective appeals are assailing the finding of the tribunal below that the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In addition thereto, the corporation is assailing the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. The claimants are questioning the inadequaeyof the compensation.

( 3 ) THE claimants filed O. P. No. 129 of 1996 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of the Claimants 2 and 3 in a motor accident that occurred on 8. 1. 1996 at about 7. 20 p. m. , on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP-7t-2288 owned by the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and on hire with the third respondent; and that on account of the accident the deceased was run over and died on his way to Gandhi Hospital; and that on account of his death, the family suffered financially and mentally. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a Welder in the Corporation and was earning Rs. 5,000. 00per month.

( 4 ) THE claim was resisted by the respondents. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle while generally denying the allegations made by the claimants pleaded that since the bus was insured with the second respondent/insurer and on contract of hire with the third respondent/corporation, the Respondents 2 and 3 were liable to pay the compensation.

( 5 ) THE case of the second respondent/ insurer was that the claim of the claimants was exorbitant and since the vehicle was under the contract of hire with the third respondent, the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation.

( 6 ) THE case of the third respondent/ corporation was that the Corporation entered into an agreement for hire with the first respondent for limited purpose. The just compensation determined by the Tribunal, therefore, must be paid by the Respondents 1 and 2 who were jointly and severally liable being the insured and insurer of the offending vehicle. The liability of the insured and insurer was not excluded merely because the vehicle had been hired to a third parry. The driver of the offending vehicle had been in the employment of the first respondent and his services had not been transferred to the third respondent along with complete control to the corporation, and hence the Corporation could not initiate any action against the driver; and that the vehicle was under the maintenance of the first respondent and, therefore, the corporation was not liable to pay the compensation; and that the compensation claimed was highly excessive.

( 7 ) ON an appreciation of evidence available on record, the Tribunal eventually found that the accident in this case was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Having regard to the oral testimony of P. W. 2, the duty constable at the place of accident, buttressed by Ex. A. 1, FIR given by him to the Station House Officer, Ctilkalguda Police station coupled with the oral evidence of p. W. 3 and Exs. A. 3, A. 4, A. 5 and A. 6, the inquest report, panchanama with regard to the scene at the place of accident, MVI report and charge-sheet respectively, the tribunal was of the clear view that the accident in this case was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced on the side of the respondents. Both P. Ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses. They are natural witnesses and their presence near the place