( 1 ) THE claimants in O. P. No. 658 of 1989 filed this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District judge, Nalgonda by Award, dt. 19-10-1990 in O. P. No. 658 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the appellants herein filed O. P. No. 658 of 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Kancherla sreenivasa Reddy in a motor accident. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellants 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased k. Sreenivasa Reddy. According to the claimants, the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was hale and healthy and was working as headmaster in the Upper Primary School at thanderapally Village, Nalgonda District. On 05-02-1989, at about 4. 30 p. m. , while the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was going on a scooter bearing No. AAL 5092 along with another person by name Narayana Reddy and while they reached PWD Road leading from Bhongir to Chityal, the lorry bearing no. AAE 7839 belonging to the 1st respondent came at high speed from the opposite side and hit the scooter of the deceased.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the claimants that the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident due to which, the deceased died on the spot and the pillion rider suffered injuries. Acceding to the claimants, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,200/- per month and since they lost the only earning member of their family, they made a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the owner of the lorry as well as the 2nd respondent with whom the lorry was insured.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent Insurance company contested the claim petition by filing a counter denying various allegations made therein regarding the accident. The insurance Company also disputed the income of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the above said pleadings, the Tribunal below settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased Kancherla srinivas Reddy died having involved in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AAE 7839, or due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of scooter bearing no. AAL 5092 by the deceased himself? (2) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief?

( 6 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below, the 1st claimant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as P. W. 1 and the pillion rider who was an eyewitness to the accident was examined as P. W. 2. The claimants also marked Exs. A-1 to A-16 documents in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined, but the certificate of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex. B-1.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal below on appreciation of the evidence on record held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAE 7893 resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.

( 8 ) ON issue No. 2 regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of rs. 1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency and awarded a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, dated 19-10-1990, the claimants have come up with the present appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal beiow is not adequate.

( 9 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants as