B. Chandra Kumar, J.

Since both these C.M.As i.e., C.M.A. No. 2664 of 2003 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, and C.M.A.No. 2922 of 2003 filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C challenging awarding of compensation in favour of the claimants, arise out of the order dated 25-04-2003 made in O.P. No. 404 of 1997 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge, Nellore) (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal'), they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. This case is yet another example, to show how a single incident destroys all the hopes and aspirations of a well settled family. The first claimant had lost her husband P. Surendra Reddy, who was aged about 29 years on the date of accident (hereinafter referred as `the deceased'). The first claimant was aged only 20 years and the second claimant was aged about four months on the date of accident. The third claimant is the father and the fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was working as Marine Engineer, who had obtained licence to work as Merchant Marine Officer from several countries. He was under the employment of BERGESEN: As Company working from 01-12-1995 on a monthly remuneration of 1924 US Dollars equivalent to Rs.71,088/- and maintaining his family very decently. As per the terms and conditions of employment, his employment was with the said Company till 21-01-2001. During the relevant period, he came to his native place Kattuvappalli village, Manubolu Mandal, Nellore District to spend the leave period with his family. On 25-05-1997 while the deceased was proceeding to his village from Nellore on a Bajaj Scooter and when he reached near Palm Oil Factory, Manubolu on G.N.T. Road and proceeding along the left side of the road, the offending RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 6511, being driven by its driver G. Sudhakar Raju in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from opposite direction i.e., from Gudur side and dashed against the Scooter and due to the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Because of the premature death of the deceased, his family lost their sole earning member. The claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs.95,65,000/- against the A.P.S.R.T.C, the owner of the bus.

4. The sole respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C resisted the 'claim-of the claimants and denied the averments of the claimants with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is also denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is further averred that the deceased himself tried to over take one mini lorry stationed by the side of the road and in that process hit the said mini lorry and fell down on the road and came underneath the wheels of the bus and that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for the accident. It is also averred that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive, exorbitant and illusionary.

5. The Tribunal framed the following issues.

1. Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AP 9Z/6511 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 were also examined and Exs.A-1 to A-42 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked. The letter written by the State Bank of India, Nellore, to the District Judge, Nellore informing the rate of US Dollar was marked as Ex.X-1.

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. On issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at 1924