( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 18-11 -2003, passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District judge at Cuddapah (for brevity "the tribunal"), allowing the M. V. O. P. No. 22 of 2001, filed under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act read with Rule 475 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of one Palagiri Masthan Valli caused in a road accident on 22-10-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing no. AP. 03-T-3964 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent.

( 3 ) THE appellant is the Insurance company, the first and second respondents are the claimants and the third respondent is the owner of the lorry.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellant, the first and second respondents and the third respondent will be referred to as "the Insurance Company, the claimants and the owner of the lorry" respectively.

( 5 ) THE case of the claimants, in brief, is that they are the parents of the deceased minor boy by name Palagiri Masthan Valli, who died in a road accident at 11 -00 a. m. , on 22-10-2000 on Rayachoty-Cuddapah main road at Mulavanka; that the deceased was riding a bicycle along with his elder brother by name Anjaneswar towards Cuddapah side; that the driver of the lorry bearing no. AP. 03-T-3964 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased and his elder brother were thrown at a distance of the road side; that the incident was witnessed by the father of the deceased and that while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at 12-35 p. m. , on 22-10-2000.

( 6 ) THE Insurance Company filed counter denying the mode and manner of accident stated in the claim petition and contending that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased who tried to cross the road without observing the vehicles passing on the road and was involved in the accident; that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry; that the driver of the lorry has no valid driving licence at the time of accident; that the deceased was aged 10 years, he was not an earning member and was dependent on his parents and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

( 7 ) THE owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

( 8 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased by name palagiri Masthan Valli received injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 22-10-2000 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP. 03-T-3964 by its driver belonging to the Respondent no-1? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief?

( 9 ) IN support of the case of the claimants, the first claimant examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 on their behalf. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced.

( 10 ) THE Tribunal after considering the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, having held on issue No-1 that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and on issue No-2 that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all, under all the heads, granted a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.

( 11 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal needs interference by this Court and is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the compensation granted bv the Tribunal is higher than the compensatio