Heard both sides.

2. Since the issue involved being same and all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of a common order and decrees, dated 5-10-1998, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur (for brevity "the Tribunal"), in M.V.O.P. Nos.188, 318 and 319 of 1994, respectively, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by this common judgment.

3. The United India Insurance Company Limited (for brevity "the insurer") has filed the appeals C.MANos.435, 469 and 556 of 1999, under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act"), against the common order and decrees, dated 5-10-1998, passed by the Tribunal, in M.V.O.P.Nos.318, 188 and 319 of 1994, respectively; while the claimants have filed the appeals C.M.A.Nos.968 and 974 of 1999, under Section 173 (1) of the Act against the common order and decrees, dated 5-10-1998, passed by the Tribunal, in M.V.O.P.Nos.319 and 318 of 1994, respectively.

4. The factual matrix is as under:

On 24-1-1994 at about 4 a.m., while the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 1994, one Dhulipala Veeraiah Chowdary (for brevity "the deceased") in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 1994 and the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.319 of 1994 were returning from Guntur to Chintalapudi in a jeep bearing No.AP.7D-3536, it was hit by the lorry bearing NO.ADG-2322, which was coming from opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and contrary to the traffic rules, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot and the claimants in two other M.V.O.Ps., were grievously injured. To that effect, a report was made to the Police, which was registered as Crime No.9 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC.

5. The claimants in all the three M.V.O.Ps., have claimed different amounts depending upon either the injuries received by them in the accident or due to the death of the deceased in M.V.O.P. No.318 of 1994.

6. The Tribunal, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, awarded different amounts towards compensation to the claimants in all three M.V.O.Ps.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation, the appeals C.MA Nos.435, 469 and 556 of 1999 have been filed by the insurer and the appeals C.MA Nos.968 and 974 of 1999 have been filed by the claimants for not granting interest on the amount of compensation.

8. A sum of Rs.13,000/- was granted by the Tribunal towards compensation to the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 1994. Since the said amount is very trivial, at the outset, we are not inclined to interfere with the said amount, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Hence, the appeal C.M.A.No.469 of 1999 filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of triviality and not on any other ground.

9. Coming to the other appeals viz., C.M.A.No.435 of 1999, C.M.A.No.556 of 1998, C.M.A.No.968 of 1999 and C.MANo.974 of 1999, there is not much dispute on the merits.

10. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 1994, the claimant NO.2 in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 1994 and the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.319 of 1994 examined themselves as P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and five others as P.Ws.3 and 5 to 8 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-18 on their behalf. On behalf of the insurer, R.Ws. 1 and 4 were examined and Exs.8-1 to 8-5 were marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 were also marked by the Tribunal, with consent of both parties.

11. Regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, there is not much controversy. However, from a perusal of the impugned common order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver resulting in the death of the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 1994 and receiving injuries by the claimants in M.V.O.P.Nos.188 and 319 of 1994. Further, no evidence was let in, in order to show that there was