M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3547/2009 is filed by the vacate petitioners -respondents 1 to 3 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.1470/2009. When the vacate application is came up for hearing before this Court, the Counsel on record Sri V.Sambasiva Rao and Sri U.P.Rao, made a request for disposal of the M.A.C.M.A. itself finally. Hence, the same was heard finally by this Court with the consent of the Counsel on record.

2. Sri Sambasiva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant - 2nd respondent in O.P.No.2206/2007 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge -cum - Before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal below') would maintain that the Judgment and Decree made by the Tribunal below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel pointed out that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is excessive. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would maintain that at the relevant point of time, these being minors, and inasmuch as, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also, the awarding of compensation at the best can be 50% and the rest of the 50% awarded by the Tribunal below to be negatived. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on ANURADHA KAUSHIK v. VARUN GROUND WATER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.CORPN. ((2007) ACC 305 (DB)) of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

3. Per contra, Sri U.P.Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents-claimants had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal below and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the Tribunal below this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that except marking certified copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.B.1, no other acceptable evidence worth-mentioning had been placed before the Court. Hence, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever in this regard, it cannot be contended that the deceased were minors at that time and further it cannot be contended that there was contributory negligence and hence, the compensation to be restricted to the 50% of the awarded compensation. The learned Counsel relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. Heard the Counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal below.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A.:-

1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case?

2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?

6. Point No.1:-The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.2206/2007 on the file of the Tribunal below. The said O.P. was filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 as claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of one T.Narasimhulu in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal below on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and Ex.B.1, came to the conclusion that the said O.P. to be allowed partly with proportionate costs against both the respondents awarding compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. had been preferred by the 2nd respondent -United India Insurance Company Limited. The 1st respondent in the O.P. is shown as 4th respondent in the present M.A.C.M.A. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.2206/2007 on the file of the Tribunal be