( 1 ) THESE appeals under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 referred to hereinafter as the Act, are directed against certain awards made by the learned Additional District judge-cum-Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam in applications filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under section 110-A of the Act awarding certain amounts towards compensation in respect of an accident involving the death of certain persons.

( 2 ) ON 30th June, 1973, an accident took place during the early hours between milestones 221/4 and 221/6 near Ambarpet on the highway, Hyderabad to Vijayawada, while m. Radha Krishnamurthy, Regional Transport officer, Guntur, M, Purnachandra Rao, motor Vehicles Inspector, Tenali, R. Ranga rao, driver of Ambassador car, AAG. 1652, s. Subba Rao, Motor Vehicles Inspector, guntur and Ammer, the driver working under S. Subba Rao were travelling in the ambassador car, AAG 1652 when a lorry tnu 3360 driven by one by name r. Seetharaman dashed against the Ambassador car which was completely smashed and all the five occupants of the ambassador car died instantaneously and their bodies were mutilated beyond recognition. The accident, according to the legal representatives of the deceased, took place on account of negligence and rash driving of the lorry driver, R. Seetharaman.

( 3 ) O. P. No. 90 of 1973 was filed by the legal representatives, six in number, of m. Raddha Krishna Murthy who was aged about 47 years when the accident took place and who was working as Regional Transport officer, Guntur, drawing a salary of Rs. 630 per month. It was stated in the petition filed under section 110-A of the Act that as per the family tradition and history, Radha krishna Murthy would have lived upto the age of 80 years and that the deceased was having a bright future and he would have risen to the position of Deputy Transport Commissioner. The first petitioner is hiswife aged 40 years and petitioners 2 to 6 are his children. The wife was deprived of consortium and dependence for the rest of her life undergoing great mental shock and agony. The first petitioner therefore claims Rs. 40,000 for the loss of consortium, support and maintenance and Rs. 20,000 for mental shock, paid and agony. The children who are petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are deprived of support from their father and petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 are daughters yet to be married. They were also deprived of educational facilities. But for this accident, the deceased would have educated all of them and placed them in good position in life. Therefore for the marriage expenses, for the education and for maintenance, petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 claim an amount of Rs. 25,000 each.

( 4 ) NOTICES were served on the respondents claiming the amounts. The United India fire and General Insurance Company (Unit madras as Motor General Insurance) Registered office at Madras, the second respondent gave reply notice and the other respondents did not give any reply notice. The petitioners restricted their claim only to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.

( 5 ) M/s. Thevar Transport, Meluru, the owner of the lorry (first respondent) filed a counter denying the material allegations contained in the application and stated that the driver of the lorry was an experienced, cool and steady driver and he was driving the lorry calmly and cooly in a normal way at a normal, ordinary and permissible speed and there was no need or necessity or motive for the driver of the lorry to drive the lorry rashly and negligently. The driver of the Ambassador car was driving rashly and negligently at a high speed without observing any rules of the road and that the negligence of the driver of the ambassador car was responsible for the accident. It is further stated in the counter that the amount of compensation was excessive and imaginary out of all proportion. The lorry transport is an essential service for any country and the lorry of the respondent is fully insured