( 1 ) BOTH the appeals and the Civil Revision Petition are lisposed oftogether as they arise out of the same cause of action.

( 2 ) BOTH the appeals are filed against the Order and decree in O. P. No. 216 of 1983 dted August 19, 1985, on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Nalgonda.

( 3 ) THE appellants in C. M A. No. 1247 of 1985 are the father andmother of the deceased, who are claimants in O. P. No. 216/83. They preferred this appeal claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as against rs. 20,000/- awarded by the tribunal below to the 1st petitioner and dismissing the claim of the 2nd petitioner-therein.

( 4 ) THE appellant in C. M. A. No. 1407 of 1985 is the driver-2ndrespondent in the very same O. P. No. 216/1983. He filed this appeal aggrieved by the direction of the court below to pay the compensation to the claimant.

( 5 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 3749 of 1985 is tiled by the 2nd respotdent-driver in O. P. 218 of 1983 aggrieved by the order and decree therein, wherein he was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the injured person by name Ashok in the same accident.

( 6 ) THUS, all the three cases are disposed of together by a commonjudgment.

( 7 ) THE admitted facts are that, one K. Narayana Reddi, first respondentin both the O. Ps. is the owner and one Arogiya, second respondent in both the O. Ps is the driver of the tranctor-cum-trailer bearing Nos. APL 4722 and APN 5105 respectively. One Ludharaiah, father of the driver, and the 2nd respondent-driver took the tractor-cum-trailer on 21-8-1983 on hire for 15 days for transplantation work and they brought the same to dattapuram and parked it in the open space in front of the school. On the fateful day, i. e. , on September 1, 1983, in the early hours at 5-00 A-M, when (he driver started the tractor and drove it in the reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner, without noticing the deceased and the injured who were sleeping there, the deceased by name Rajaiah aged 18 years, a cow-boy was run over by the tractor and one Ashok sustained injuries. The father and mother of the deceased laid their claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in O. P. 216 of 1983, and the injured person, Ashok laid his claim for compensation in O. P. 218 of 1983. In O. P. 216 of 1983, the tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the 1st petitioner-mother of the deceased and dismissed the claim of the 2nd petitioner. The tribunal further directed the 2nd respondent-driver to pay the compensation amount to the 1st petitioner while dismissing the claim as against the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent-therein. Dis-satisfied with the order and decree of the court below, the claimants filed C. M. A. 1247 of 1985. The 2nd respondent-driver in O. P. 216 of 1983 is the appellant in C. M. A. 1407 of 1985. He filed this appeal aggrieved by the direction of the court below, directing him to pay the compensation amount to the 1st petitioner while dismissing the claim against the owner-1st respondents C. R. P. No. 3749 of 1985 is filed by the 2nd respondent-driver in O. P. 218/1983 which was filed by the injured, Ashok in the same accident. The court below awarded Rs. 1,000/- to the injurned and directed the driver to pay that amount while dismissing the claim as against the owner of the vehicle.

( 8 ) TWO contentions have been raised by Sri D. Reddeppareddy,learned counsel for the appellant-driver in CMA 1407/1985 and for the revision petitioner in CRP 3749/85.

( 9 ) FIRSTLY, it is contended that Arogiya had not driven the vehiclerashly and negligently and no legal liability can be fastened to the driver. I find no force in this contention. The court below on a careful consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence found that the driver was res- posible for the accident. In fact, P. W. 2, the injured in the same accident, and claimant in O. P. 218/83 is a direct wilness to the occurrence. The fact that P. W. 2 sustained injuries during