Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 2 and 3-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity 'the Corporation') in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529 and 573 of 2003, who are respondents 4 and 5 in CMA No.408 of 2003; and respondent NO.5-owner of car bearing Registration No.AP.25B-2277 in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529 and 573 of 2003, who is respondent No.7 in CMA No.408 of 2003; and there is no representation on their behalf.

2. Heard Smt. A. Malathi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-claimants in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529 and 573 of 2003 and respondent Nos.l to 3-claimants in CMA No.408 of 2003 only, since respondent No.4-transferor of the offending car in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529 and 573 of 2003, who is respondent No.6 in CMA No.408 of 2003 was shown as 'not necessary' vide cause titles.

3. Since all these civil miscellaneous appeals an cross-objections do arise out of one and the same accident and the issue involved in all these matters being common, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, dated 31.1.2002, in O.P. Nos.704, 703, 702, 701, 706 and 705 of 1995, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in awarding Rs.l,25,000/-, Rs.l,00,000/-, Rs.l0,000/-, Rs.70,000/- and Rs.70,000/- as against the claims of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.l,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.l,50,000/- and Rs.l ,50,000/-, respectively, towards compensation to the claimants in O.P. Nos.704, 703, 702, 706 and 705 of 1995, respectively, for the injuries sustained by them; and a sum of Rs.1,17,500/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimants in O.P. No.701 of 1995 for the death of their mother.' by name one N Yellamma, in a motor accident that occurred on 12.5.1995, insurer has preferred CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529, 573 and 408 of 2003, respectively, seeking to exonerate it from the liability of paying compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants.

5. Whereas, the claimants have filed Cross-Objections (S.R) Nos.91 079, 91071, 28212,91080,91074 and 28211 of 2003 in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 408,529 and 573 of 2003, respectively, seeking enhancement.

6. The facts, which are not in dispute, in brief, are that on 12.5.1995, the offending car, in which the claimants in CMA Nos.237, 260, 276, 529 and 573 of 2003 and the mother of claimants in CMA No.408 of 2003 were travelling, hit the stationed bus bearing registration No.AP9Z-7064 belonging to the Corporation, as a result of which two persons died including the husband of the owner of the vehicle and the rest were injured.

7. There was a serious dispute before the Tribunal as regards the rash and negligent driving of the vehicles involved in the accident.

8. It is the case of the claimants, who were travelling in the offending car, that because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of bus belonging to the Corporation, the accident took place and that since the driver of the bus did not take appropriate steps by lighting the lamps (indicators) indicating that it was stationed, the car in which the claimants were travelling hit against the stationed bus, causing death of two persons and bodily injuries to the inmates.

9. The Tribunal, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, recorded a finding that the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation was not at fault and attributed the rashness and negligence totally to the driver of car in which the claimants were travelling, and awarded compensation to them on the ground that the policy of the car (Ex. B-l) was in subsistence as on the date of accident making the insurer thereby responsible to pay the compensation.

10. It is the contention of the learned Standing Cou