1) The insurer-respondents 2 and 3 of the claim petition among three respondents including the owner of the crime auto bearing No.AP 12 T 8732 preferred the appeal having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad against the award in O.P. No.1286 of 2003 dated 17.11.2006 by the claimants who are no other than the husband and two major sons of the deceased by name Anjan Bai Metre aged about 55 years, awarding compensation of Rs.2,39,900/-(Rupees Two lakhs thirty nine thousand and nine hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2) Heard Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Chayadevi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (who are legal representatives of late 1st claimant and the deceased). The claim against the owner of the vehicle, 4th respondent to the appeal, for want of service, noted dismissal for default vide orders of this Court dated 15.09.2011, who in fact remained exparte before the Tribunal and thereby there is no bar to the maintainability of the appeal vide decision in M.Chakradhara Rao v. Y.Baburao 2001(1)ALT 495 DB. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3) The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-insurer in nutshell are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the Tribunal went wrong in not considering the factum of the auto having capacity only 3+1, overloaded with 7+1 even as per the very F.I.R relied upon as Ex.A-1 as well as Ex.A-4 charge sheet was two persons on either side of the driver which actually meant for driver alone and that is the reason for cause of the accident mainly the auto dashing a road side big tree and so far as the claimants 2 and 3 since 1st claimant, husband of the deceased, lost breath during the pendency of the claim petition, no way dependants on the deceased-mother, but for mere legal representatives that is not a ground to award any compensation that was ignored by the Tribunal, that Tribunal also erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- as well as in applying multiplier at 11 even the age of the deceased was more than 60 years apart from awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium even 1st claimant died during pendency of the claim petition and thereby exonerate the insurer for violation of the terms of the policy for overloading the auto if not to fix contributory negligence with personal liability on the driver and owner without to indemnify by the insurer to the extent of contributory negligence for the violation and also to reduce the quantum of compensation for the reasons mentioned supra. In the course of hearing, the learned standing counsel for the insurer reiterated the said contentions. Whereas, it is the contention of the claimants as respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal that above contentions are untenable and there is nothing to interfere with the award of the Tribunal, but for want of cross-objections to enhance the compensation awarded since utterly low and to dismiss the appeal.

4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the overloading contributed to the accident and if so there any exoneration of the insurer from indemnifying the insured to any extent therefrom?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and requires to reduce and also for the reason that the claimants who are respondents 2 and 3 of the appeal are no way dependants on the deceased mother b