M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in O.P. No.2076 of 2009, dated 29.10.2012, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (For short, ‘the Act’), seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.25,00,00/- as claimed before the Tribunal in O.P. No.2076 of 2009.

2. The appellants herein were the petitioners and the respondents herein were the respondents before the Tribunal in O.P. No.2076 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as appellants and respondents.

3. The appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads, for untimely death of N. Abinav, who happened to be son of first and second appellants and brother of third appellant, in a road accident that occurred on 29.03.2008 at about 11:30 p.m. while the deceased Abinav was returning after attending his college annual day celebrations on his Honda Activa motor cycle bearing No.AP-13-G-7343 slowly on the left side of the road and when he reached near Jeedimetla bus stop, one Endeavor Car bearing No.AP-29Q-0009 proceeding towards Hyderabad from Medchal, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased Abinav, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body, succumbed to the injuries while shifting to Balaji Hospital, Hyderabad. The deceased Abinav was aged 19 years, hale and healthy studying III Year B.Tech., and on account of untimely death of Abinav, the appellants being the parents and sister lost their future dependency.

4. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Endeavor Car bearing No.AP-29Q-0009. The first respondent being the owner and the second respondent being the insurer of the Endeavor car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. The first respondent though initially contested the matter remained ex-parte. The second respondent filed written statement denying the material allegations inter-alia contending that accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Endeavor car No.AP-29Q-0009 and the driver of the alleged vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the vehicle and as such the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy, committed breach of the policy conditions; as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and called upon the appellants to put strict proof of the age and educational qualifications of the deceased Abinav and that the claim is on high side. Further, it is contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa motor cycle by the deceased Abinav and prayed to exonerate the second respondent from payment of any compensation by dismissing the petition.

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the appellants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 and Exs.X-1 to X-5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, none were examined but got marked Ex.B-1, Insurance policy.

7. Upon hearing arguments of both the counsel and considering the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,84,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, against both the respondents. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, appellants-claimants preferred this Appeal challenging the inadequacy of compensation on various grounds mainly contending that:

a) The Tribunal did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly taken the earnings of the de