This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 against the award, dated 04.1.2007, in O.P.No.1141 of 2001, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Addl.Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The wife, minor children and parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition on the death of one G.Satyanarayana, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor accident that was occurred on 17.2.2001 at about 9.00

A.M. when the deceased was proceeding towards Anantharam from Hyderabad side on his scooter slowly on the extreme left side of the road and on reaching the outskirts of Rayageeri village, Nalgonda District, said to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 driven by its driver with high speed and dashed from back side against the scooter of the deceased. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Bhongir police registered a case in Cr.No.17 of 2001 under Section 304(A) IPC. The deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident and he was running a kirana and general stores and he was also a milk vendor and used to earn Rs.4,000/-per month and was contributing all his earnings for the maintenance of the petitioners.

3. First respondent/appellant herein resisted the claim petition by filing a counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and contended that he has already sold away the offending car to the second respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

4. Second respondent in the OP, who is the first respondent in the appeal filed a counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and contending that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle. But respondent No.1 is the owner of the said car. According to him, he being a friend of R-1 obliged his request and paid a sum of Rs.64,500/- to the petitioner on behalf of R-1 which is repayable by the first respondent to him. According to him R-1 also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and also on some printed blank forms on 28.4.2002 and later this respondent learnt about the fraud played by R-1.

According to him, if at all any compensation is payable, R-1 alone is responsible for paying the said compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1.Whether the accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478 by its driver resulting in the death of G.Satyanarayana on 17.2.2001?

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

3. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as PW.1, an eye-witness was also examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked with the consent of both the parties.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 23 B 6478. The Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.16,00/- per month towards contribution to his family and by applying the multiplier 18', fixed the compensation at Rs.3,45,600/- under the head of 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate to all the petitioners. Thus, a total sum of Rs.3,75,600/-was awarded as compensation, which was payable with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

8. The Tr