( 1 ) THE claimants in O. P. No. 901 of 1990 filed this appeal questioning the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda dated 27-4-1993.

( 2 ) THE first appellant is the wife of the deceased and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased and the appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle i. e. jeep bearing No. A. A. Y. No. 4390 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the jeep was insured.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sri Shekar and his two sons while returning from Nakrekal of Nalgonda district in a jeep bearing No. AAY No. 4390 belonging to the first respondent the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and the driver of the lorry which were driven in a high speed resulting in accident in which deceased Shekar and his son died. The accident took place on 17-9-1990. Hence they claimed for total compensation amount of Rupees 3,00,000/ -.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the issue that whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AAY 4390, the tribunal held that it has no hesitation to disbelieve the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 as a whole and their evidence is not accepted with regard to the accident but held that there is no evidence to show that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of any of the vehicles and drawn an inference that it may be a providential accident on account of negligence by both the vehicles i. e. , the jeep and the lorry or on account of error of judgment by both the sides, one vehicle cannot be picked up. The tribunal further held that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of any of the vehicles as there is no evidence and awarded compensation under no fault liability. With regard to quantum of compensation the tribunal held that income of the deceased can be easily be taken as Rs. 1,500. 00 and his contribution to the family would be Rupees 700/- per month and the tribunal has calculated total compensation at Rs. 1,84,800. 00 and granted only Rs. 25,000. 00 under no fault liability.

( 5 ) THE first appellant, wife of the deceased who was examined as PW 1 stated that her husband died due to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17-9-1990 and her son also died in the same accident while they were returning from Nakrekal. His son dies on the spot and her husband received grievous injuries and immediately after the accident she rushed to the scene of accident and inspected the scene of accident which revealed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and a lorry and her husband was shifted to the Government hospital, Nalgonda from the scene of the accident. She stated that he used to contribute Rs. 2000. 00 per month to the family and his monthly earnings were Rs. 3000. 00. The respondent No. 1 not at all cross-examined her but there was a cross-examination on behalf of the second respondent and the 2nd respondent did not suggest anything about the rash and negligent act of driving of the driver of the jeep but only gave a suggestion that the earning of her husband was not Rs. 3000. 00.

( 6 ) THE third appellant Sri P. Mohan who was travelling along with his father in the same jeep examined himself as PW 2 and he stated on oath that the deceased is his father and stated that while he was returning from Nakrekal along with his father and brother in the offending jeep the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the lorry came from the opposite side and there was a collision between the two vehicles in which his brother died on the spot. There was no cross-examination by the first respondent and there was cross-examination on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the suggestion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and