C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P.No.43 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore.

2. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the death of one Tata Suresh. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.6,98,160/-as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

3. The facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:

4. The deceased was working as Process Server in Judicial Department and was getting a salary of Rs.4,935/-p.m. On 09.05.1999 at about 2.30 PM, the deceased was travelling on a motor cycle on N.H.9 within the limits of Saroornagar police station. At that time, a lorry bearing No. AP 9-T-8502 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle causing grievous injuries to the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are minor sons and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. According to them, because of the sudden demise of the deceased, they have lost their sole bread winner.

5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte while the insurance company which was shown as second respondent filed counter denying the contents in the claim petition. They disputed the relationship between the claimants and the deceased, the manner in which the accident took place, involvement of the deceased in the said accident, age and income as well as the occupation of the deceased. They further contended that the lorry driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. It is further mentioned in the counter that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties since there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler.

6. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The insurance company did not adduce any oral evidence, but got marked Ex.B.1 insurance policy on their behalf.

7. The 4th petitioner in the O.P. got himself examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident and P.W.3 the Central Nazar in the District Court, Nellore was examined to prove the income of the deceased.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,935/-awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,98,160/-as against a claim of Rs.8.00 lakhs.

9. P.W.1 the father of the deceased was examined to show that the deceased was working as Process Server in the Judicial Department and was earning Rs.4,935/-p.m. According to him, if the deceased lived for a long time, he had opportunity of getting promotions in his service. Though he deposes as to the manner in which the accident took place, he was not an eyewitness to the incident. He admits that after the demise of his son, his daughter-in-law was given a post in District Court on compassionate grounds at Nellore. According to him, he retired as lab technician in DSR Government hospital, Nellore and was getting Rs.3,000/-towards pension.

10. P.W.2 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident. According to him the deceased was driving Hero Honda Motoryclce and another person was sitting as pillion rider on the said vehicle. The lorry which was coming behind the said motorcycle was driven at high speed, crossed an auto in which P.W.2 was going and hit against the two wheeler in which the deceased and another person were going. The lorry was loaded with sand and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased