One Mr. G.Sai Kumar, brother of respondents 1 to 3 was proceeding on a motorcycle along with one Mr.K.Suresh (P.W.2) on National Highway No.7 near Shadnagar. A bus bearing No.AP 22V 1215 owned by the 4th respondent, insured with the appellant and on hire with the 5th respondent dashed against the motorcycle near Gollapally Stage. Sai Kumar died on the spot. O.P.No.552 of 2006 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. It was stated that the deceased was working as a cable operator, aged about 25 years and was unmarried. His parents are said to have died after the occurrence of the accident, but before the institution of the O.P. They pleaded that the deceased died on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus.

2. The 4th respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the fact that the deceased was traveling on a motorcycle with three passengers and he lost balance. It was also pleaded that the bus was on hire with the A.P.S.R.T.C. and that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the O.P. on the ground that respondents 1 to 3 cannot be treated as dependants. The quantum of compensation is also assailed.

3. The Tribunal passed an order dated 10.10.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3. The same is challenged in this appeal.

4. Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is only the dependants of the deceased that can maintain a claim petition and that being the brothers and married sister of the deceased, respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as well as in determination of the compensation.

5. Sri Ganta Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 on the other hand submits that evidence on record clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. He contends that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers right upon the legal representatives of a deceased in the accident to file a claim petition and it is not necessary that the claimant must necessarily be a dependant of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that by the time the accident occurred, the parents of the deceased were very much alive and in that view of the matter, the claim in the O.P. can be said to be in relation to the estate of the deceased Sai Kumar or of his parents. As to quantum also, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has taken the correct parameters into account.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the accident took place at about 5:20 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP 22V 125 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?

7. To prove their case, respondents 1 to 3 examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.9. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B.1. Both the issues were answered in favour of the respondents 1 to 3.

8. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is as to the very maintainability of the O.P. They contend that respondents 1 to 3, who are the brothers and married sister of the deceased, are not entitled to claim compensation. In this context, it becomes necessary to take note of Section 166 (1) of the Act. It reads as under:

166. Application for compensation:-

(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by th